Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Blackburn Corporation Bill [Lords],

Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Shropshire Worcestershire and Staffordshire Electric Power (Consolidation) Bill [Lords],

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Bucks Water Board) Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Church Stretton) Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Horsforth) Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Llandrindod Wells) Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Rawmarsh) Bill,

West Hartlepool Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Cirencester) Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Wath upon Dearne) Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY (JEWS).

Mr. McGovern: asked the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to call a conference of France, America, and certain other countries with a view to adopting a policy of financial and economic boycott of Germany in order to change the policy of ill-treatment and starvation of Jews in that country and Austria?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): His Majesty's Government are unable to accept this suggestion.

Mr. McGovern: Will the hon. Gentleman state any reasonable action that the Government have taken to get some sort of conference with a view to ending this vicious terror that is taking place on helpless minorities in Germany? Is there any reason for the Government's lack of action?

Mr. Butler: The sympathetic attitude of His Majesty's Government towards the Jewish problem in general will be seen by their attitude in participating in the Evian Conference.

Mr. T. Williams: asked the Prime Minister whether any reply has been received from Germany regarding the position of Jews of British nationality who hold property in Germany or Austria; and, if so, will he communicate the contents to the House?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. His Majesty's Ambassador at Berlin has been informed by the German Ministry of Foreign Affairs that, in accordance with the first paragraph of the Decree of 26th April regarding the registration of Jewish property, Jews of British nationality are required to register their property situated in Germany, but that the administrative authorities will refrain from enforcing the registration procedure in the case of Jewish property owned by British subjects, provided they are domiciled outside Germany, and are not emigrés of former German nationality The Ministry have also given an assurance that, if the question arises of utilising the property so registered in accordance with paragraph 7 of the Decree, each case will be examined to see whether the rights guaranteed to British subjects under the Anglo-German Commercial Treaty of 1924 are effected.

Mr. Williams: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the terms are consistent with the desires of His Majesty's Government?

Mr. Butler: They are consistent with our desires as far as we can carry them out, under our Treaty obligations and the exigencies of German law.

Mr. Williams: In view of the fact that Germany is supposed to be a friendly


nation, are not His Majesty's Government entitled to expect that British subjects should be treated as British subjects?

Mr. Butler: I think it would be wrong to suppose that the answer given is not couched in friendly terms, as the hon. Member will see if he examines it.

Mr. Maxton: Is it not a fact that this is very similar to the case of Mexico; and why the difference of method in the one case as compared with the other?

Mr. Butler: I cannot accept the assertion that the two cases are similar.

Oral Answers to Questions — TURKEY (BRITISH SCHOOL OF ARCHAEOLOGY).

Mr. Loftus: asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government will consider providing a sufficient grant to establish a British school of archaeology in Angora?

Mr. Butler: I understand that proposals for the establishment of a British centre of archaeology in Turkey have been under consideration by certain private persons; but the promoters have not hitherto officially approached His Majesty's Government for financial support in connection with their project.

Mr. Loftus: Is my hon. Friend aware that the establishment of such a school would be warmly welcomed in influential quarters in Turkey?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. I am well aware of the importance attached to it.

Mr. Gallecher: Might there not be discovered as a result of archaeology some specimens of those who voted yesterday for the Bill concerning blasphemy?

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN.

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister the date on which the French frontier was closed and the date on which it is proposed that the Portuguese frontier will be closed and the sea control scheme put into operation?

Mr. Butler: As I have previously informed the House, observation on both the Franco-Spanish and the Portuguese-Spanish frontiers has for a long time been

in suspense. In so far, therefore, as the observation scheme is not in operation on either the French or Portuguese frontiers, the responsibility for ensuring the fulfilment of France's and Portugal's obligations under the Non-Intervention Agreement rests solely with the authorities of those countries. The date on which observation on both land frontiers will be restored, and the sea observation scheme in its new form put into operation, will be that on which the International Commissions appointed for the purpose of supervising the withdrawal scheme report that they are ready to begin the counting of the foreign volunteers.

Mr. Mander: Is the closing of the frontier on the Pyrenees entirely a matter for the French Government and nothing to do with non-intervention observers at the present time?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Mender: Is not even that arrangement a grossly unjust one in view of the situation on the Portuguese frontier?

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister whether any control over aircraft arriving by air in Spain will be in operation during the visit of the counting commission, and by what means equality of treatment will be obtained in view of the fact that the supplies of one side arrive by sea only?

Mr. Butler: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave him on 1st June. The revised observation scheme of the Non-Intervention Committee which will be put into force when the commissions are ready to start counting, is a balanced plan designed to secure equality of control on the land and sea frontiers and is accepted as such by all the countries parties to the Non-Intervention Agreement.

Mr. Mander: Yes, but does not this so-called balanced plan permit aircraft to arrive by air in unlimited quantities? Is there any control of arrivals by air?

Mr. Butler: If the hon. Member will refer to my previous answer, he will see that I cannot say in advance what details on this subject the plan will contain, but the Non-Intervention Committee have given this difficult subject the attention it deserves.

Mr. Mander: Will the Minister be good enough to give a specific reply in connection with this new scheme? Is there going to be any control whatever over aircraft arriving by air?

Mr. Butler: I cannot say in advance what the plan will contain, but I understand the Non-Intervention Committee have given very close consideration to this scheme with the object of finding some remedy.

Mr. Mender: But have they found one?

Duchess of Atholl: Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that, if the Non-Intervention Committee think it right that there should be some control of the air, they will not bring other forms of control into operation until they have a satisfactory scheme for controlling arrivals by air?

Mr. Butler: The Noble Lady may rest assured of the importance which the Non-Intervention Committee attach to this particular aspect of the control plan, and the best thing is to wait and see the plan in toto.

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister if he will state the names of the countries with which, in the Government's opinion, a danger of war may arise through the use of force against General Franco by Great Britain to protect British sailors and ships to Spain?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): No, Sir.

Mr. Mander: Is not the House entitled to know what countries are in the Government's mind—Portugal, Paraguay, Venezuela? What country is it?

Mr. H. G. Williams: Has my right hon. Friend ever seen quite such a mischievous question?

ii. Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Prime Minister whether he can make any statement in regard to the bombing of the British merchant ships "Farnham" and "Arlon" on 27th June; and what action he has taken in the matter?

Mr. Vyvyan Adams: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that on 27th June two further ships flying the British flag were bombed by insurgent aircraft; that these attacks caused casualties among the crews, including

British nationals, and that the "Arlon" is, in consequence, a total loss; and whether he will now inform General Franco that, unless these attacks cease forthwith, His Majesty's Government will resort to reprisals or other retaliatory action?

The Prime Minister: According to my Noble Friend's information, the harbour of Valencia was raided at about 6 a.m. on 27th June by aircraft flying high, and the British tanker "Arlon" was hit and set on fire. The steamship "Farnham" was struck in a raid on the Port of Alicante at about 7 a.m. on the same morning. As regards the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for West Leeds (Mr. V. Adams) His Majesty's Government propose, as the House is aware, to consult with Sir Robert Hodgson on the whole question of attacks on British shipping.

Mr. Strauss: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether British lives were lost, as was reported by the Press agencies, and meanwhile, whether any action whatever is going to be taken to protect our nationals carrying out their duties?

The Prime Minister: My present information is that some lives—three, I think—were lost in the "Farnham."

Mr. Adams: When Sir Robert Hodgson has reported, do the Government intend to evolve a policy to protect our shipping proceeding on its lawful occasions?

The Prime Minister: I think we must wait until Sir Robert Hodgson returns.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: May I ask, first, whether the right hon. Gentleman can give the date of Sir Robert Hodgson's return, and secondly, whether the Press report is correct that His Majesty's Government are making immediate representations to the Italian Government, through the Ambassador in Rome, on the question of the bombing of British ships?

The Prime Minister: With regard to the second question, I have not seen any such report. With regard to the first, the date of Sir Robert Hodgson's return is to-morrow.

Mr. Alexander: Is the subject matter of the report correct?

The Prime Minister: I think I would prefer to see the report first.

Mr. Attlee: Surely, the Prime Minister can answer, as a matter of fact, whether or not representations are being made in Rome, without being in possession of what a newspaper thinks about it?

The Prime Minister: The Opposition are always trying to trap me into making statements.

Mr. Attlee: The Prime Minister accuses us of always trying to trap him, but is it not perfectly clear that the Government are always trying to evade giving straight answers?

Mr. Cary: asked the Prime Minister whether he will inform the House of the actual number of British merchant ships which have been molested in Spanish waters during the progress of the Spanish civil war; and, further whether he will state the proportion of the total number of ships which have been attacked by seacraft and those which have been attacked by aircraft?

Mr. Butler: I am aware of no case of a British ship being attacked by naval vessels within territorial waters. Particulars of the detention of certain ships off the north coast of Spain were given in reply to the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Parker) on 8th December last. Otherwise 43 British ships have been involved in attacks by aircraft in Spanish territorial waters.

Mr. Cary: Will my hon. Friend circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the name of each ship attacked, the name of the company owning and operating the ship, the nature of the cargo and whether the attack was made inside or outside territorial waters?

Mr. Butler: I will certainly consider my hon. Friend's suggestion and see whether I can give him the particulars for which he asks.

Mr. Macquisten: Will he also ascertain whether any ships are being sent into Spanish territorial waters by responsible British shipowners who have respect for the lives of their men?

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that the customary protest has been sent to

General Franco in respect of each of these attacks?

Mr. Butler: The House will remember that we have always differentiated between attacks which we regarded as deliberate, and other attacks which we had no reason to believe were deliberate.

Mr. Thurtle: asked the Prime Minister whether he has now received any report from Spain on the allegation made recently that a premature relief of Castellon was staged by the Republican authorities of that town and that, as a result, 2,000 of the civil population who were welcoming what they thought were General Franco's troops were shot down by the Republican troops; and, if not, will he cause prompt inquiries to be made?

Mr. Butler: His Majesty's Government are not prepared to take upon themselves the duty of confirming or denying such reports.

Mr. Thurtle: Is the Minister aware that this allegation has been made in this House by one of his own supporters; is he also aware that it is a grave reflection upon the Republican troops of Spain; and does he not think that, in the circumstances, he owes it to Republican Spain to make some inquiry into this matter?

Mr. Butler: I am afraid that I cannot take it upon myself to alter the terms of my original reply. We cannot take upon ourselves the duty of confirming or denying such reports.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Has the hon. Gentleman received any such report from the British representative in Spain?

Mr. Butler: I have seen no such report.

Mr. Arthur Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Italian Government, through their Chargé d'Affaires in Paris, have conveyed a warning to the French Foreign Office for communication to the Spanish Government that if an attack should be made by Spanish aircraft on Italian vessels in Spanish insurgent ports effective and prompt action will be taken against the aircraft concerned; and whether His Majesty's Government will represent to the Italian Government that they would regard any attacks on Spanish Government aircraft as constituting Italian intervention?

Mr. Butler: The answer to the first part is in the negative: the second part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

Mr. Henderson: Have not the Italian Government made it clear that they intend to use their armed forces to resist any attacks on their merchant ships by Spanish Government aeroplanes; and why cannot His Majesty's Government adopt the same policy with regard to attacks on British merchantmen?

Mr. Butler: The hon. Member's question refers to Spanish insurgent ports, and, as I say, I have received no confirmation of this report.

Mr. Kirkwood: If the hon. Gentleman does receive confirmation of such a report, will he take like action on behalf of British seamen?

Mr. Cocks: asked the Prime Minister whether any soundings on the possibility of bringing about a truce in Spain have been made at Rome; and whether any reply on the subject has been received from the Italian Government?

Mr. Butler: I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave on 27th June to a question by the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones).

Mr. Cocks: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the answer to which he refers consisted of meaningless generalities—

Mr. Speaker: I cannot allow a supplementary question of that kind to be put.

Mr. Cocks: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that war material and men have recently been despatched to General Franco from Germany, passing over the Brenner Pass and being shipped from Genoa; whether he can give the House particulars of this assistance to the Spanish insurgents; and whether he will bring the matter to the attention of the Non-Intervention Committee?

Mr. Butler: I have no confirmation of this report. The last part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

Mr. Cocks: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this information is in possession of the Foreign Office?

Mr. Butler: If I had the information, I would not say that I had no confirmation of the report.

Mr. Cocks: Will the hon. Gentleman examine the information in the possession of the Foreign Secretary?

Duchess of Atholl: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that in the hills surrounding Algeciras more than 20 guns have been mounted, including three guns of more than 10-inch, a number of long-range 5.9's, and several heavy howitzers, so placed that they could drop their shells in Gibraltar, but yet are invisible from the highest point on the rock; that there are nine naval-type guns of about 4-inch on the Punta Carnero, at least one 15-inch gun on a high peak near Alcala de las Gazules, nearly 21 miles inland, while some 45 guns, ranging from 6-inch to 15-inch, have been installed near Ceuta, in Spanish Morocco; and what action does he propose to take?

Mr. Butler: I cannot confirm the statements in this question from the information in my possession, but naturally the military situation of Gibraltar and any alterations of the conditions which affect it are constantly reviewed by His Majesty's Government and their advisers.

Duchess of Atholl: Seeing that this subject is of such importance as the answer obviously implies, will the hon. Gentleman make special investigation to find whether this information is correct?

Mr. Butler: I realise the importance which the Noble Lady attaches to the question, and I assure her that the matter is receiving consideration.

Mr. V. Adams: Do not the Government attach importance to the matter?

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Prime Minister on how many occasions demands have been made by His Majesty's Government to General Franco that disciplinary action should be taken against members of his armed forces responsible for attacks on British ships in Spanish waters?

Mr. Butler: The representations made by His Majesty's Government to the Burgos authorities in connection with the attacks on British ships have varied in accordance with the circumstances of the attack. In the case of the bombing of the steamship "Thorpehall" at Valencia on 24th May His Majesty's Government informed the Burgos authorities that they must demand an immediate inquiry into


this attack and strong disciplinary action against the crew of the offending aircraft; Sir Robert Hodgson was, moreover, recently requested to inquire whether this disciplinary action had yet been taken. In other cases where the attack appears to have been deliberate, His Majesty's Government have demanded an immediate inquiry into the circumstances.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Are we to understand that after 43 attacks on British ships one request has been made for disciplinary action against those who have made such attacks?

Mr. Butler: Similar action has been taken in other cases, as the hon. Member will see if he refers to the latter part of my answer.

Mr. Gallacher: In the event of no disciplinary action being taken, what do the Government propose to do?

Mr. Dalton: Has a reply been received to any of these demands?

Mr. Speaker: rose—

Mr. Dalton: May I submit, with great respect, that my supplementary question is in order?

Mr. Speaker: We cannot have a Debate on every one of these questions.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: asked the Prime Minister whether, during the negotiation of the Italian agreement, any assurance was asked for as to the bombing of British ships by Italian aeroplanes?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir.

Mr. Benn: In view of the fact that the hon. Gentleman told us on 28th March that 26 ships had been attacked, does he say that no reference was made to that fact in the conversations preliminary to the Italian agreement?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Benn: Then may I ask the Prime Minister whether this question of the bombing of British ships by the Italians was raised by Lord Perth with Count Ciano yesterday?

The Prime Minister: I should like to have notice of that question.

Mr. Benn: May I ask the Prime Minister whether any instructions were

given to Lord Perth to raise this question with Count Ciano?

The Prime Minister: I should like to have notice of that question also.

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of his apprehension that direct measures for the protection of British ships in Spanish waters might lead to an extension of the war, His Majesty's Government's representative on the Non-Intervention Committee will invite that body to bring joint pressure to bear on the insurgent authorities to stop these bombings?

Mr. Butler: My Noble Friend does not consider that such a step would produce the results desired.

Mr. Strauss: Have the Government considered approaching any individual members of the Non-Intervention Committee asking them to take such steps?

Mr. Butler: I should require notice of that question. I have answered the question on the Paper.

Miss Rathbone: asked the Prime Minister whether a pension will be paid to the dependants of the British nonintervention officer recently killed off the Spanish coast; and, if so, by whom?

Mr. Butler: I am informed that arrangements have been made by the Non-Intervention Board to provide for the dependants of this officer.

Miss Rathbone: By whom will the payment be made, by the Italian Government who are responsible for the killing, or will it be made out of the funds in the possession of the Non-Intervention Committee, or by whom?

Mr. Butler: I cannot accept the statement made by the hon. Lady, but in answer to her question, the funds will come from the Non-Intervention Board.

Duchess of Atholl: Will there be similar provision for the dependants of observation officers who lose their lives in this work?

Mr. Butler: I think the Noble Lady can rely on the Non-Intervention Board taking the necessary steps in the case of any unfortunate case of this sort.

Duchess of Atholl: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that French destroyers lie daily near


Spanish Republican ports when French merchantment are lying in these ports; and will be give orders for British destroyers to lie at such ports whenever British merchantmen are there, as it has been found that the presence of destroyers has some effect in preventing bombing of ships?

The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Duff Cooper): I have no information that French destroyers adopt the practice suggested by the Noble Lady. Nor have I any reason to suppose that if they were to do so, it would produce the effect suggested. The answer to the last part of the question is, therefore, in the negative.

Duchess of Atholl: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries as to whether this system is adopted?

Mr. Cooper: I have made inquiries.

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what was the name of His Majesty's ship which recently conducted the steamship "Stan-croft" from Valencia to Gibraltar; and what instructions were given to its commanding officer concerning his mission?

Mr. Cooper: The "Stancroft" was not actually escorted all the way from Valencia to Gibraltar, but a boarding party from His Majesty's Ship "Hyperion" was placed on board with instructions to take her with cargo intact to Gibraltar following the Nyon route.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Are we to understand that British warships went into a Spanish port and, in Spanish territorial waters, ordered the "Stancroft" out with a cargo which belonged to the Spanish Government?

Mr. Cooper: That is an entirely different question from that on the Paper.

Mr. Noel-Baker: May I ask whether the commander had instructions to order the "Stancroft" to leave Valencia and to proceed to Gibraltar?

Mr. Cooper: That is a different question. The hon. Gentleman asked what was the name of the ship which conducted the "Stancroft" to Gibraltar. He did not ask what were the circumstances. He also asked what instructions were given to the commanding officer concerning his

mission. A boarding party from H.M.S. "Hyperion" was placed on board, and I have given their instructions, which were to take the "Stancroft" with cargo intact to Gibraltar.

Mr. Noel-Baker: That is to say that a British warship was instructed to order the "Stancroft" to leave Valencia with a cargo belonging to the Spanish Government, and we took that action in Spanish territorial waters?

Mr. George Griffiths: Where are we getting to?

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA AND JAPAN.

Mr. Day: asked the Prime Minister whether he will give particulars of any joint representations that have been made by the various Powers to the Japanese Government on the question of the Canton or other air raids in China?

Mr. Butler: No joint representations have been made to the Japanese Government on the subject of air raids in China. Separate representations have, however, been made by the British and other representatives in Tokyo.

Mr. Day: Are discussions taking place at the present time between the various Governments?

Mr. Butler: Not that I am aware of.

Sir Patrick Hannon: asked the Prime Minister whether he has yet received a reply from the Japanese Government to the representations of His Majesty's Government that the Japanese authorities should now permit the Shanghai Municipal Council to resume their normal control over the area of the International Settlement at Shanghai?

Mr. Butler: Replies have been received from time to time from the Japanese authorities at Shanghai deferring the return to normal conditions for one reason or another. His Majesty's Government have lost no opportunity of making clear both at Tokyo and at Shanghai the dissatisfaction with which they regard this state of affairs.

Sir P. Hannon: Is it not a fact that His Majesty's Government find it very difficult to get a definite reply from the Japanese Government?

Mr. Butler: On this particular subject, yes, Sir, but not on all subjects.

Mr. Moreing: asked the Prime Minister whether he has any information of the announcement by the Japanese authorities in China that foreigners' extraterritorial rights in the Japanese-occupied portions of China are to be abolished; and whether he will give instructions to have the Japanese Government and their representatives in China informed without delay that any order to this effect will not be accepted by His Majesty's Government?

Mr. Butler: My Noble Friend has seen in the Press the report of the remarks attributed to the Japanese official spokesman at Shanghai, and he has instructed His Majesty's Ambassador at Tokyo to take the matter up with the Japanese Government.

Mr. Chorlton: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that under international law the Japanese have no right to interfere with neutral shipping on the Yangtze River, particularly having regard to the fact that they are not technically at war with China; and whether he is prepared to give an undertaking that no British man-of-war shall be removed from the Yangtze without replacement by an equivalent unit?

Mr. Butler: For a statement of the treaty position I would refer to a reply which I gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chertsey (Commander Marsden) on 24th March. As regards the second part of the question, the movements of British ships of war in the Far East lie within the discretion of the Commander-in-Chief, China Station, which my Noble Friend would not wish to limit.

Mr. Chorlton: Has there been any further explanation with regard to trade?

Mr. Butler: I should require notice of that question.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Prime Minister whether he will give an assurance that as long as the legal Government of China is in existence His Majesty's Government will not recognise any Government of China set up by the Japanese Government?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — ABYSSINIA.

Sir Stanley Reed: asked the Prime Minister what States Members of the

League of Nations have recognised the annexation by Italy of Ethiopia, and on what dates any such recognitions were given?

Mr. Butler: With the hon. Member's permission I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list, with dates, of those States Members of the League of Nations who, according to the information at our disposal, have taken action which may be regarded as equivalent to recognition in one form or another of the Italian conquest of Ethiopia.

Following is the list:

Hungary, November, 1936.
Albania, November, 1936.
Switzerland, December, 1936.
Chile, December, 1936.
Great Britain, December, 1936.
France, December, 1936.
Honduras, March, 1937.
Poland, May, 1937.
Yugoslavia, November, 1937.
Ecuador, December, 1937.
Latvia, January, 1938.
Netherlands, March, 1938.
Bulgaria, March, 1938.
Belgium, March, 1938.
Rumania, April, 1938.
Greece, April, 1938.
Turkey, April, 1938.
Czechoslovakia, April, 1938.
Finland, April, 1938.
Lithuania, May, 1938.
Panama, May, 1938.
Eire, May, 1938.
Estonia, May, 1938.
Peru, May, 1938.
Sweden, May, 1938.
Norway, May, 1938.
Uruguay, May, 1938.
Denmark, May, 1938.
Argentina, June, 1938.

Oral Answers to Questions — DANZIG.

Mr. James Griffiths: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the fact that at a recent meeting of the Danzig Volkstag all the members attended in the uniform of the German brown shirts; and whether, in view of the apprehension aroused in Danzig by this indication that an early decision for the return of the Free State to the German Reich will be taken, he can make any statement on the matter?

Mr. Butler: My Noble Friend has received no special report on this subject, and does not consider that any such incident need have the significance which the hon. Member attaches to it.

Mr. Macquisten: Is not my hon. Friend aware that the reason for the uniform is that soap and fats are very scarce in Germany?

Oral Answers to Questions — LONDON NAVAL TREATY.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government has yet reached any agreement with the Government of the United States on the size of battleships and heavy guns; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take to secure Japan's agreement not to exceed these maximum figures?

The Prime Minister: I regret that I am at present not in a position to add anything to the reply given to the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) on 15th June. I understand, however, that my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty will make a statement on the subject at a very early date.

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE (ARMING).

Mr. Loftus: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the recently announced decision of the Admiralty that the convoy system will be used from the outbreak of war, he will reconsider the policy of subsidising and encouraging the mounting of guns on our Mercantile Marine?

Mr. Cooper: No, Sir. The adoption of the convoy system does not preclude the desirability of arming our merchant service for two main reasons. In the first place, the armed merchantmen will strengthen the resistance of the convoy itself against attack, and in the second place it must not be assumed that every merchant ship will be at all times and in all places protected by convoy.

Mr. Noel-Baker: If merchant ships are in any case to be armed, is it not desirable to start the training of the men?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "WALRUS."

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether

any disciplinary action has been taken arising out of the circumstances connected with the grounding of His Majesty's ship "Walrus"; whether the four riggers on board the ship when she grounded have been recommended for reward in recognition of their good conduct, and what the position is in regard to pay of the riggers who went to hospital?

Mr. Cooper: A court of enquiry was held. The court found, and the Admiralty agreed, that the decision to send the ships to sea in the existing weather conditions was an error of judgment, and those responsible have been so informed. The Board have caused an expression of appreciation to be conveyed to two of the four riggers on board, in view of their meritorious conduct in assisting their injured colleagues to safety. The conduct of these men was also brought specially to the notice of the Royal Humane Society, who have, I am pleased to say, announced their intention of awarding them the Society's Honorary Testimonial on vellum. Further, in recognition of the circumstances in which the four men on board the "Walrus" were placed, the Board have granted to each of them a special gratuity, which will be payable in addition to the regulated hurt pay.

ITALIAN SHIPS (ENTERTAINMENT, MALTA).

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the estimated cost to the British Treasury of the entertainment of units of the Italian fleet at Malta and Gibraltar?

Mr. Cooper: Apart from any expenses met by officers and men of the Mediterranean Fleet, the cost of the naval entertainment of the Italian ships at Malta was borne by the Navy Vote, in which provision is made for the entertainment of foreign guests of His Majesty's Navy, and for which money has been taken in the current Navy Estimates. No special charge, therefore, will fall upon the Treasury on this account. There has been no official entertainment of Italian ships at Gibraltar recently.

Mr. Cocks: Is the First Lord aware that this entertainment included a performance of Shakespeare's "As you like it," and was this a reference to the bombing of British merchant ships?

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE.

TERRORISM.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement as to the position in Palestine generally and as to the progress of measures for the suppression of terrorism in that country?

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): With regard to the general question and the measures being taken to suppress terrorism, I have nothing to add to the statement which I made in the course of the Debate on 14th June.

Mr. Adams: Can the House be informed what progress is being made in the suppression of this terrorism?

Mr. MacDonald: I made a very careful statement as to the progress in the Debate on 14th June, and the situation has not altered since then. That still represents an accurate picture of the measures that are being taken.

Mr. Gallacher: Is not the real terrorism on the part of the Government?

Mr. Graham White: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what information he has with regard to terrorist attacks in the town and neighbourhood of Safad, in Galilee, during the last four months, and the withdrawal of military from the town?

Mr. MacDonald: As the reply is rather long, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

During the last four months shots have been fired at the Jewish quarter at Safad on four occasions, and one Jew was shot and slightly wounded by Arabs. In the same period a military billet overlooking the town has been sniped at four times. In the neighbourhood of the town a Government stone crusher was maliciously burned and a party of Jewish labourers was ambushed, without casualties, in May, while in June there was another ambush of Jewish labourers, one of whom was shot dead. A company of troops was stationed at Safad in March. On 20th May it was reduced in connection with the operations for the occupation of certain Arab villages in northern Palestine.

Between 22nd May and 3rd June the remaining military strength was transferred to a more favourable tactical position overlooking the town, from which a night patrol of 20 men was provided for duty in the town. On 4th June the contingent was again brought up to company strength. Since 18th June, when the contingent was reduced to the strength of a platoon, a nightly reserve force of 15 men has been on duty in Safad town. The situation is engaging the constant attention of the High Commissioner and the General Officer Commanding, and it has recently been decided that a battalion which is intended for the protection of the northern frontier shall be based on Safad.

Mr. T. Williams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will explain why a special public funeral was granted for the two bandits who were killed in an engagement on the northern frontier of Palestine; and further, why this funeral was headed by the Mayor of Safad, attended by Arab scouts, schoolchildren, and large numbers of men and women, seeing that this amounted to a glorification of terrorism?

Mr. MacDonald: I have received no report on this incident, but I will make inquiries.

Mr. Williams: If the right hon. Gentleman finds that the statement contained in the question is correct, will he deprecate a repetition of this kind of thing in view of the murders and terrorism which have been going on?

Mr. MacDonald: I think I had better find out exactly what has happened before I commit myself.

Mr. Macquisten: Is the Minister aware that in Chicago and New York gangsters are given fine funerals?

GRAND MUM.

Mr. McGovern: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the date when the Grand Mufti took office in Palestine; the amount of salary he has drawn since then up to the time of his dismissal; whether any funds of the Grand Mufti have been confiscated; and whether any negotiations have taken place with the French Government regarding propaganda and the terrorist activities of the Grand Mufti?

Mr. M. MacDonald: Haj Amin Husseini was appointed Mufti of Jerusalem in 1921 and was elected President of the Supreme Moslem Council in the following year. In the latter capacity he exercised certain judicial functions in respect of which he received a salary from public funds of £600 a year. The Wakf funds over which the Mufti exercised control in his capacity as Chairman of the Wakf Committee have been temporarily transferred to the control of a Commission appointed by the High Commissioner. With regard to the last part of the question, I understand that Haj Amin is still being kept under surveillance by the French authorities in the Lebanon. Close contact has been and is being maintained with the French Government regarding the alleged political activities on his part to which the hon. Member refers.

Mr. McGovern: Is not the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the Grand Mufti is not directing now the terrorist activities in that quarter; is he aware that statements are being made by very responsible persons that there is a continual source of activity from this quarter, and will he consider making representations to end this horrible terrorism in Palestine?

Mr. MacDonald: I have nothing to add to the answer which I have given. As I have said, I am keeping in touch with the French Government about the alleged activities of the Mufti.

Mr. McGovern: Is the Minister himself aware—has he any information—that such activity is going on?

Mr. MacDonald: We have certain information, but such information as we have we have passed on to the French authorities.

Mr. Lipson: Is the action that has been taken having the necessary effect, and does not my right hon. Friend think it necessary to make strong representations?

Mr. MacDonald: We are keeping in touch, and I cannot add to what I have already said.

MAGISTRATES, JERUSALEM.

Mr. T. Williams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will explain why there have been no further Jewish magistrates appointed in Jerusalem since 1920, although the

Jewish population has increased from 28,000 to 78,000; and why four additional Arab magistrates have been appointed, seeing that the Arab population has remained almost stationary in Jerusalem?

Mr. M. MacDonald: I am not in a position to say whether the facts are as stated in the question, but I will make inquiries on the subject.

Mr. Williams: While the right hon. Gentleman is making inquiries, will he ascertain how many of these courts are presided over by Arabs, with the result that the language of the magistrate is different from that of the parties appearing before him?

Mr. MacDonald: I will get that information at the same time if I can do so.

TRINIDAD.

Mr. Paling: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet received the petition presented on behalf of certain East Indians and others, in Trinidad, who form the Coronation Omnibus Association; and, if so, what steps he has taken in the matter?

Mr. M. MacDonald: I have not yet received this petition. As I assured the hon. Member on 23rd May, when it is received it will be given full consideration.

Mr. Paling: Does the right hon. Gentleman know whether the Governor has received it?

Mr. MacDonald: I cannot say for certain, but I expect that he has received it and that before sending it on to me he is preparing his own comments on it so that I may consider the two documents at the same time.

NYASALAND (SURVEYS).

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the mineralogical survey of Nyasaland which has been proceeding since 1934 has now been completed; and will he give particulars, according to the last reports he has received, of the progress that has been made with the complete agricultural survey of the Northern Province; and what further action the Government now propose to take?

Mr. M. MacDonald: It is estimated that the mineralogical survey will be completed by 1940. The agricultural survey of the Northern Province is being carried out by aerial and ground surveys under officers familiar with the terrain, and it is hoped that it will be completed by the end of this year. I shall then expect to receive a report on the results from the Government of Nyasaland.

Mr. Day: Has there been any preliminary report following the survey that was taken after the Lacey Report on Labour?

Mr. MacDonald: I should require notice of that question.

KENYA (LABOURERS ORDINANCE).

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has satisfied himself that sufficient land is available for squatters who will be turned off the land as a result of the operation of the new Resident Labourers Ordinance; and whether he has been assured by the Kenya Government that the overcrowding in certain reserves shall not be increased?

Mr. M. MacDonald: The Government of Kenya is making every effort to provide suitable land and, in the meantime, the Ordinance is not being brought into operation. As regards the last part of the question, the object of setting aside further land for these labourers is to avoid congestion in the existing reserves.

Mr. Creech Jones: Has the Royal Assent been given to this Ordinance?

Mr. MacDonald: I think that the Royal Assent has been given, but it will not be brought into operation until the conditions which are to be satisfied are fulfilled.

Mr. Creech Jones: Does that mean that the Kenya Government will communicate with the Secretary of State for his endorsement before the Ordinance is actually put into operation?

Mr. MacDonald: I think there would be communications between the Governor and the Secretary of State. In any case, I can assure the hon. Member that the conditions about the provision of alternative land will be complied with.

Mr. Riley: Will the right hon. Gentleman satisfy himself, before consenting to

the Ordinance, that adequate accommodation is provided for the squatters?

Mr. MacDonald: I have already answered that question in my reply to previous supplementary questions.

Mr. Riley: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether children from 10 years of age and upwards employed under contract in Kenya Colony are subject to the Ordinance to regulate the employment of servants, including labourers; and, as this Ordinance provides that a servant may be fined a sum not exceeding half his monthly wages and in default may be imprisoned for a period not exceeding one month if, without leave, he absents himself from his employer's premises or other place appointed for his work, will he consider the revocation of the penal clauses of this Ordinance?

Mr. MacDonald: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I propose, as I have already informed the House, to review the whole matter as soon as I have received the report of the committee of inquiry appointed by the Governor.

Mr. Riley: Is the Minister aware that the International Labour Office at Geneva has issued a strong recommendation on this subject, and is he prepared to support it?

Mr. MacDonald: As a result of the recent proceedings at Geneva I am getting into communication with the Governor on the matter.

FOREIGN POLICY (DOMINIONS).

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the recent speech of the Australian Attorney-General advocating consultations between the British Government and the Dominion Governments on foreign affairs; and whether, in agreement with the Dominion Governments, he will take steps to establish machinery with a view to securing adequate consultation on the main aspects of foreign affairs?

The Prime Minister: As the House is aware, the principles regarding the system of communication and consultation between His Majesty's several Governments on foreign affairs are now well established, and the machinery at present in force has been devised to give effect to those


principles. The present system is being constantly watched and His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom are always ready to apply any practical proposal which would have the effect of improving the machinery.

Mr. Henderson: Are we to take it from the answer that the Dominion Governments are given the opportunity of helping to shape British foreign policy, and are not merely asked to approve or disapprove a particular aspect of foreign policy?

The Prime Minister: As the Attorney-General for Australia said in this particular speech, international events cannot always wait while the family is having a chat round the fireside, but we take every possible opportunity to keep the Dominion Governments fully informed of developments in foreign policy.

Mr. Bellenger: Is it not possible and desirable to utilise modern methods for quick communication between the Governments, such as wireless telephony?

The Prime Minister: We are always trying to improve our methods, but we cannot lay down any hard-and-fast rules about the use of any particular method.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Have any concrete proposals been received from the Dominions recently for the improvement of the machinery?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

FAMILY ALLOWANCES.

Mr. Boothby: asked the Prime Minister whether he will set up a Royal Commission to examine the question of family allowances?

The Prime Minister: I have given careful attention to the representations on this subject which have been made in the House and elsewhere. As at present advised I do not think that the time has come to make an inquiry of the kind proposed into this subject.

Mr. Boothby: In view of the bearing of this question on the whole problem of nutrition and of the widespread public interest that is taken in it, will the Prime Minister give us an undertaking that it will be carefully examined by the Government?

The Prime Minister: It will be kept under consideration. I am not sure what my hon. Friend means by examination.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that there is considerable and deep-seated hostility among the trade unions to any system of family allowances which is borne by the industry? In the meantime will the Government use their influence to raise wage standards?

Miss Rathbone: If the Prime Minister does not want to appoint a Royal Commission, will he consider appointing some other form of inquiry in view of the fact that it is now two years since the Statutory Committee on Unemployment Insurance called attention to the necessity of such an inquiry?

The Prime Minister: It is not so much a question of the form of the inquiry as of whether there should be an inquiry.

Mr. Pilkington: In view of the fact that family allowances are taken into consideration in all forms of public relief, does not my right hon. Friend think it extremely desirable that industry should pursue a similar policy?

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE.

REARMAMENT (CANADIAN CO-OPERATION).

Sir Percy Hurd: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence what arrangements are being made to enlist Canadian co-operation in the general rearmament plans of the Government?

The Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence (Sir Thomas Inskip): His Majesty's Government in Canada, in common with His Majesty's Governments in other Dominions, have been kept informed with regard to the rearmament programme in this country. The possibility of placing orders in Canada is under continual examination, and orders have been placed in certain cases in which suitable terms, including times of delivery, could be arranged.

HERRING AND LOBSTER CANNING INDUSTRY.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether he has now considered the proposal to establish a herring or lobster canning industry in the Western Isles as an additional source of food supply against shortage in emergency, especially in view of its safety from attack?

Sir T. Inskip: As regards herring there is a surplus capacity for canning. His Majesty's Government therefore are unable to adopt the hon. Member's proposal. As regards the lobster industry, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question by the hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. Gibson) on 8th March by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade.

Mr. MacMillan: Do I understand that there is no proposal for any further development of this industry?

Sir T. Inskip: I have no proposal at all for the further development of the herring canning industry. The industry is situated largely on the East Coast, and the hon. Gentleman has asked about the establishment on the West Coast.

CYPRUS.

Mr. Moreing: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the feeling of resentment expressed by the inhabitants of Cyprus at the fact that the majority of officials in the island do not speak Greek and have to carry on their duties through interpreters; and will he take steps to ensure that officials should in future be acquainted with the Greek language?

Mr. M. MacDonald: My information does not agree with the suggestion in the first part of the question. As my hon. Friend is doubtless aware, the people of Cyprus are by no means wholly Greek-speaking, and include a considerable element, whose mother tongue is Turkish. About 95 per cent. of the officials are themselves Cypriots who speak either Greek or Turkish, and British officials are encouraged, or in appropriate cases required, to obtain a knowledge of one or other of these languages.

Mr. Moreing: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, as the prosperity and well-being of Cyprus depends on the efficient irrigation of the Messaoria Plain, he is proposing to take steps with this object in view?

Mr. MacDonald: I am informed that the water engineer, who has been conducting investigations in Cyprus, expects very shortly to be able to submit to the Cyprus Government concrete proposals for increasing water supplies in various

localities, the majority of which are in the Messaoria Plain.

Mr. Moreing: Is the water engineer to whom my right hon. Friend referred in his reply the gentleman who published the progress report which my right hon. Friend recently put in the Library of the House?

Mr. MacDonald: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Moreing: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that that gentleman is sufficiently instructed in the nature of the problem in Cyprus to make constructive proposals?

Mr. MacDonald: Yes, I think he is a very experienced water engineer, and well qualified to carry out his work and make recommendations.

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the post in Cyprus to which Mr. Howard Nankivell, the recent secretary for labour in Trinidad, has been transferred is of equal status to that held in Trinidad, and why the salary is £200 less?

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Nankivell's appointment to the post of Treasurer in Cyprus represented promotion in the Colonial Service. The total emoluments of the post are £50 less than that of the temporary post held by Mr. Nankivell in Trinidad, but having regard to other factors, particularly the provision of free passages on leave for the officer and certain members of his family, the Cyprus post is definitely of higher value.

Mr. Creech Jones: Are we to understand that this gentleman's position in the Colonial service has not been prejudiced?

Mr. MacDonald: I do not think it can be said to have been prejudiced seeing that he has received promotion.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in connection with the proposed extension of the powers of local authorities in Cyprus, it is proposed to allow these councils to be elected in whole or in part by a popular franchise?

Mr. MacDonald: The term of office of the existing municipal councils in Cyprus does not expire until 1940. No decision has yet been reached as to the arrangements for constituting new councils in that year.

Mr. Gallacher: Is full liberty of discussion and criticism to be allowed to the ordinary inhabitants in connection with these local councils?

Mr. MacDonald: I have not received any protests on the subject, and therefore I am satisfied that the position is all right.

Mr. Gallacher: Are they to be allowed to publish any papers or leaflets they wish to publish in order to discuss and criticise what is going on in the local councils and in the island generally?

Viscountess Astor: This is Cyprus, not Russia.

Mr. MacDonald: That is a separate question which I will willingly answer if it is put down.

Mr. H. G. Williams: Is it not the case that the amount of freedom in Cyprus is substantially greater than in Moscow?

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether anything has been done to implement the recommendation of the Government Commissioner in 1934 that steps should be taken to reduce the interest burden on the indebtedness of the agrarian population of Cyprus?

Mr. MacDonald: This complicated question is being dealt with in two stages. As a first step it was considered necessary to improve the facilities for the grant of credit. This has now been accomplished, as regards long-term credit, by the reconstitution of the Agricultural Bank, and, as regards short-term credit, by arrangements for the improvement of the operations of co-operative societies. It remains to deal with the problem of existing indebtedness. I am at present in consultation with the Governor regarding this question, but I am not yet in a position to make any announcement.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that the poverty in Cyprus among the agrarian population is as terrible as the poverty in the West Indian islands, and that the problem of their debts prevents them from making any progress whatever, and will he take special steps to deal with the position? Further, is he aware that the workers in Moscow have greater freedom than any other workers?

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when it is proposed to restore constitutional government to Cyprus?

Mr. MacDonald: I do not consider that the time has yet arrived when any change in the constitution of the Central Government can be contemplated.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the fierce suppression of the Cypriots, carried on for the past half year, would it not be desirable to give them an opportunity of conducting their own affairs in their own way by the institution of a legislative assembly?

Mr. MacDonald: I cannot agree with the description which the hon. Member has given of the situation in the island. As to the second part of his question, I have already answered it in my reply to the main question.

FORCED MARRIAGES (BRITISH DEPENDENCIES).

Miss Rathbone: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the information received from the Governments of British Dependencies as to forced marriages of girls and the arrangements made for preventing or penalising those responsible for such marriages has yet been published, and in what form; and, if not, when publication may be expected?

Mr. MacDonald: I propose to present to Parliament about the middle of July a Command Paper giving information on this subject.

Mr. Macquisten: Will my right hon. Friend publish the names of these places and the means of migrating there?

BRITISH GUIANA.

Mr. Paling: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the terms of settlement offered to the sugar workers in British Guiana have been rejected on any of the plantations; and will he state the amount of wages paid, the amount of increase offered, and whether the terms include extra tasks for the workers concerned?

Mr. MacDonald: The terms of settlement offered were rejected by the factory


workers on one of the estates and the field workers on another. The terms offered represent increases of from 20 to 25 per cent. for heavier field work and from 10 to 12 per cent. for weeding and light field work, and these increased rates work out at from 2s. 8d. to 3s. a day for heavy field work and from 1s. 4d. to 2s. 6d. a day for weeding and light work, on which lads and women are mostly employed. I understand that in no case have the tasks prescribed been increased.

Mr. Paling: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what proportion of people are affected?

Mr. MacDonald: I am afraid I could not say without notice, but I will let the hon. Member have that information.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when he expects to receive the report of the economic survey now being prepared in British Guiana; and whether its terms of reference include the question of the opening up of the country for further immigration from the West Indies or elsewhere?

Mr. MacDonald: I presume that the hon. Member is referring to the programme of agricultural economic surveys of the cane-farming, rice and coffee industries, which is being carried out by the Agricultural Department. These surveys were started this year and are to be spread over a period of three years. As regards the second part of the question, the principal object of these surveys is to secure information as to the type of farm unit most appropriate to the conditions existing in the areas surveyed. Such information is of high importance in formulating schemes for agricultural settlement, but in this connection I would invite attention to the report of the West Indian Sugar Commission, which is most discouraging as to the prospects of permanent agricultural settlement in the interior of British Guiana.

Mr. Adams: In view of the urgency of some form of immigration from parts of the West Indies, will this matter receive further consideration from the Minister?

Mr. MacDonald: It is receiving my consideration, and I hope to get some assistance on the matter from the Royal

Commission which is to visit these Colonies in the near future.

STRAITS SETTLEMENTS (SEDITION BILL).

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies on what grounds a new Sedition Bill has been introduced into the Straits Settlements Legislative Council; and whether he is aware of the feeling aroused by this measure?

Mr. M. MacDonald: My information from the Governor is that the Bill has been introduced to define more clearly the law relating to sedition, and that it is based upon the law of this country on that subject. I am not aware that any substantial opposition has been aroused by this measure.

Mr. Creech Jones: What are the new grounds for the introduction of this new legislation? Is the Minister aware that if the legislation is operative it will put definite restrictions on both political and trade union activities, and how does he reconcile the introduction of this new ordinance with his recent speech that liberty is expanding in the British Empire?

Mr. MacDonald: The reason for the new ordinance is to define the law more clearly. I think the existing law is somewhat vague. As I say in my answer, the new ordinance is based on the law in this country, and I think the hon. Member is satisfied that liberty is not dead in this country.

AFRICA (JUVENILE LABOUR, MINES).

Dr. Edith Summerskill: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the earliest age that children are permitted to work underground in the African Colonies; and what is the maximum number of hours worked by children in the mines?

Mr. M. MacDonald: On the Gold Coast and in Sierra Leone the minimum age is 14 years; in Nigeria, 16; in Kenya, 12; and in Northern Rhodesia, 12. In Tanganyika draft legislation at present under consideration proposes 14 years as the minimum age. I understand that very


little juvenile labour is employed in mines in these Dependencies. I Have no detailed information as to the maximum number of hours which they are permitted to work when so employed, but I am making inquiries into the matter.

Dr. Summerskill: In view of the low standard of living of the natives and the poor physique of the children, will the right hon. Gentleman try to expedite that inquiry, especially in Kenya, where, he says, a child of 12 is allowed to do the work in a mine which is done by full-grown men in England?

Mr. MacDonald: As I say, although the law permits it, I think very little juvenile labour is employed. As regards the inquiry, I will do everything I can to expedite it.

Mr. Macquisten: Is the Minister aware that the mineowners in Africa always feed the working natives, and feed them well?

MAURITIUS (WAGES, NATIVES).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when action is likely to be taken to implement the recommendation of the special commission of inquiry in Mauritius to increase wages by 10 per cent.; whether he is aware that the proposed increase falls short of a desirable wage standard; and what were the aggregate wages paid to native workers and the total number who received such wages in 1937?

Mr. M. MacDonald: As regards the first two parts of the question, I am fully alive to the desirability of increasing wages as much as possible in the sugar industry in Mauritius. I understand that in many cases increases have already been granted over the rates prevailing before the strike last year. Legislation has been passed under which machinery is being established for the discussion between employers and employed of conditions of employment generally, and an experienced labour officer has also been appointed. Wages will be one of the first questions to be dealt with under these arrangements. As regards the last part of the question, I am doubtful whether the information is available, but I will ask the Governor.

COLONIES (MINIMUM WAGE RATES).

Mr. Paling: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies on what grounds a number of Colonial Governments have decided that up to the present it has not been found necessary to exercise the powers permitting the fixing of minimum wages for workers employed in any particular trade or profession?

Mr. M. MacDonald: As the House was informed on 14th December last, in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths) the powers referred to have actually been exercised in some 10 different Dependencies. I can only say generally that elsewhere the Governors have reported that prevailing conditions are such that they have not considered it necessary to exercise their powers.

Mr. Paling: But is the right hon. Gentleman aware that practically as many —or more—Dependencies have not put it into operation as have done so, and that in those Dependencies where it is not in operation wages are shockingly low, being 2d. or 3d. a day? If that is so, why on earth is it not put into operation?

Mr. MacDonald: I do not think I can add to what I have said, that we will keep the situation under review.

Mr. Paling: Will the right hon. Member see that it is put into operation in the other Dependencies with the object of raising wages?

Mr. MacDonald: We are following up the recent inquiry which was made, and in due course I will have a review made.

Mr. G. Griffiths: Did not the right hon. Gentleman promise me that he would make inquiries into this matter, and was that not last Christmas, seven months ago?

FISHING NETS, FIRTH OF FORTH.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will reconsider the circumstances connected with the destruction of fishing nets in the Firth of Forth by Mr. E. Mawdsley, South Queensferry, through the fouling of a submerged aero-engine which he brought


ashore after great difficulty, thus clearing away a possible menace to other fishermen; and whether he will now increase his offer of £5 to the £15 required to replace the ruined nets?

The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Kingsley Wood): The circumstances giving rise to Mr. Mawdsley's loss have been carefully and sympathetically reconsidered, but no good ground has been seen for increasing the ex-gratia offer previously made to him as a contribution towards the damage he has unfortunately sustained. If, however, the hon. Member has any further information which he could let me have as to the cost of replacing the nets I will look into the question again.

Mr. Mathers: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this man is unable to meet the cost of replacing the nets and that the nets will cost £15 to replace; and will the Minister undertake to pay that amount if I can produce information proving that £15 will be required for their replacement?

Sir K. Wood: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be willing to see me about it, when I will see what can be done.

Mr. McGovern: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that fishing nets are being made in Saughton Prison, Edinburgh, and can he not make a presentation of a set from there?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

MONOPLANE, ALVESTON, GLOUCESTERSHIRE (Loss BY FIRE).

Rear-Admiral Sir Murray Sueter: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is in a position to state the cause of the loss by fire of the Vickers-Wellesley monoplane that recently occurred at Alveston, near Gloucester?

Sir K. Wood: The aircraft was engaged upon experimental work with a new type of engine, and as it was almost completely destroyed it is impracticable to assign a definite cause for the accident. It would appear, however, that the outbreak of fire originated from the ignition, by the exhaust flame, of petrol from a leak in the petrol tank.

SPITFIRE-TYPE AIRCRAFT.

Mr. Hulbert: asked the Secretary of State for Air how many Spitfire-type air-

craft have been delivered to squadrons up to the last convenient date?

Sir K. Wood: Delivery of this type of aircraft has not yet commenced, but is expected to do so within the next two months.

SHORT-SERVICE COMMISSIONS.

Mr. Hulbert: asked the Secretary of State for Air the number of short-service commissions granted in the Royal Air Force during the past 12 months at the last convenient date, and for the same period of 1930 and 1931?

Sir K. Wood: The number of short-service commissions granted during the 12 months ending 31st May, 1938, was 1,043; the numbers for similar periods ending on 31st May, 1931 and 1932, were 232 and 165, respectively.

CONTRACTS (LANCASHIRE).

Mr. Chorlton: asked the Secretary of State for Air how much of the work for air frames and engines required for the expansion of the Royal Air Force is to be carried out in Lancashire, where much unemployment exists and labour is more readily available than in Midland areas?

Sir K. Wood: A very considerable amount of work on the production of air frames, engines and ancillary material for the air rearmament programme is already being carried out in Lancashire and still further assistance from the industrial resources in that area is likely to be required. For example, the aircraft factory at Speke is to be enlarged and its capacity increased by more than 40 per cent.

AIR PILOTS, ITALY AND GERMANY.

Mr. Garro Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether the Air Ministry has any records of public statements by the heads of the Italian and German Governments as to the number of air pilots, trained or training, in their respective countries; and, if so, whether he will give the House this information?

Sir K. Wood: Signor Mussolini is reported to have stated on 30th March that Italy was in a position to mass 20,000 to 30,000 pilots; and Herr Hitler is reported as having stated on 20th February that the National Socialist Flying Corps counted 3,000,000 members, of whom 50,000 were active.

Mr. Garro Jones: Does the right hon. Gentleman regard that as authoritative information and, if so, why did he give me a negative answer a few weeks ago when I asked him whether he had any authoritative information as to the number of pilots trained in those two countries?

Sir K. Wood: These are statements which appeared in the Press.

Mr. Garro Jones: Is it a measure of the efficiency of the intelligence service of the Air Ministry if they take no cognisance of those statements?

Sir K. Wood: The hon. Member is asking me whether I have any record of public statements, and I have given him some.

Mr. Garro Jones: Why did the right hon. Gentleman give me a negative answer when I asked whether he had any authoritative information on this important subject, some three weeks ago?

Sir K. Wood: These are Press statements which I am giving to the hon. Gentleman.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make with regard to to-morrow's business?

The Prime Minister: In view of the present state of business it is essential for us to conclude the Committee stage of the Finance Bill this week, and, if possible, the remaining stages of the Bacon Industry Bill so that it may go to another

place. Conversations have taken place through the usual channels with regard to a rearrangement of the business to-morrow to admit of an opportunity being found for the discussion of the Motion for the appointment of a Select Committee on the Official Secrets Acts. It is proposed that the order of business for to-morrow shall be as follows:

1. Motion for the appointment of the Select Committee.
2. Conclusion of the Committee stage of the Finance Bill.
3. Conclusion of the remaining stages of the Bacon Industry Bill. So far as the Bacon Industry Bill is concerned, I hope that good progress will be made to-day and that there will be very little left for consideration to-morrow.

The Supreme Court of Judicature Bill announced for to-morrow will be postponed until a later date.

Mr. Attlee: Is it proposed to enter upon the remaining stages of the Finance Bill at a very late hour? I do not think it will be possible for anyone to say how long the Debate upon the Motion may take.

The Prime Minister: I hope that, as this is a preliminary stage, there will not be an unduly long discussion on the Motion for the appointment of the Select Committee, but we must get the Committee stage of the Finance Bill this week.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 247; Noes, 133.

Orders of the Day — BACON INDUSTRY BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Requirements as to manner of exercise of power to determine form of long contracts.)

(1) The power to determine forms of contract shall be exercised as follows, that is to say:—

(a) there shall be one or more main forms of contract according as the determination may provide, for use according to the option of the producer;
(b) in the case of each of those main forms of contract there shall be the five variants mentioned in the next succeeding Sub-section.

(2) The said variants are as follows, that is to say:—

(a) a variant, in this Act referred to as "the nominated buyer variant," to be used in the case of pigs sold to a curer whom the seller has nominated as the person to whom he wishes those pigs to be sold.
(b) a variant, in this Act referred to as "the open offer variant," to be used where the seller has not so nominated a curer and does not desire to avail himself of the group contract arrangements mentioned in the next succeeding paragraph;
(c) a variant, in this Act referred to as "the group contract variant," to be used where a producer has not so nominated a curer as aforesaid and desires to avail himself of any arrangements made by or under authority of the Pigs Marketing Board (in this Act referred to as "group contract arrangements") under which two or more sellers are to employ the same agent for the purpose of arranging the deliveries under their respective contracts;
(d) a variant, in this Act referred to as "the transferred pig variant," to be used where a registered producer of pigs has exercised his right of nomination aforesaid but the pigs are nevertheless being sold to another curer; and
(e) a variant, in this Act referred to as "the transferred pig (producer-curers) variant," to be used in the circumstances specified in the provisions of this Act relating to curers who produce pigs.

(3) In the case of each main form of contract all the said variants shall be identical except for the differences specified in the following provisions of this Section.

(4) The open offer variant shall be identical with the nominated buyer variant except that it must provide—

(a) for the addition to the price of each pig delivered thereunder of a specified sum, hereinafter referred to as "the allocation premium"; and

(b) for the Pigs Marketing Board guaranteeing to the seller in a specified manner and subject to specified conditions the performance of all the obligations of the purchaser.

(5) The group contract variant shall be identical with the open offer variant, except that it may contain—

(a) provisions relating to the identity, powers, rights and duties of the agent;
(b) provisions designed to secure that, as between the various producers who employ that agent, the burden of any particular class of risk or expense is shared in a specified manner;
(c) provisions designed to secure that where several producers who employ the same agent enter into contracts with one curer, that curer is, as nearly as may be, in the same position as respects deliveries under those contracts as he would be in if all the pigs to which those contracts relate were being sold to him under one contract in the open offer variant of the main form of contract in question.

(6) The transferred pig variant shall be identical with the open offer variant except that the allocation premium must be one shilling of which sixpence must be made payable to the Pigs Marketing Board.
The said sum of sixpence shall be so payable for the benefit of the curer nominated by the seller as the person to whom he wished the pigs to be sold.

(7) The transferred pig (producer-curers) variant shall be identical with the open offer variant, except that the allocation premium must be one shilling.

(8) If no factory rationalisation scheme has come into force by the expiration of two years from the passing of this Act or such lesser period as the Minister may order, or if such a scheme which comes into force ceases to have effect by reason of an order for the revocation thereof, there shall be determined, in relation to each of the main forms of contract, the following three variants only, that is to say, the nominated buyer variant, the open offer variant and the group contract variant.—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.30 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time.
This new Clause looks formidable in its length, but I can assure the House that it really contains no change in principle, and is a redraft of certain provisions made necessary by Amendments that have been made in Committee. This Clause and the following two new Clauses on the Paper are really attempts to redraft Clause 20 of the Bill and take the place of Subsections (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) of that Clause. Hon. Members will see upon


the Paper a consequential Amendment moving the omission of these Sub-sections from the Clause as it now stands on the Paper. The changes that were made in Committee which necessitated this redraft are as follow. When the Clause went to Standing Committee it contemplated three options only for producers in making their contracts. One was the open contract, when the producer of pigs specified no particular destination for his pigs; the second was the group contract wherein a number of small producers might combine together and sell their pigs through an agent; and the third was the nominated buyer where the producer specified the curer to whom he wished to send his pigs.
In Committee there was a controversy as to the question of transferring pigs from one curer nominated in the contract to another not so nominated, and after a lot of discussion a compromise was arrived at—I am sorry to say not nemine contradicente—by which this romantic attachment to the curer of his choice was rewarded by a premium of is., that is, 6d. to go to the curer and 6d. to the producer of the pigs. That was one added variant to the form of direct contract. A second was introduced by a series of Amendments moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens). He brought up in Committee the position of yet another category of contract, namely, contracts entered into by producer-curers, that is curers who also produce pigs. As a result of his Amendments it became necessary to provide that the producer-curer should offer all his pigs for sale in the ordinary way to the Pigs Board. Those two new variants of forms of contract have necessitated this redrafting.
If Members will look at the new Clause they will see that these divergencies from the normal contract are expressed as variants, and in Sub-section (2) of the new Clause the five variants are all set out, that is to say, the three originally contemplated to which I have drawn attention, plus the other two added by the Committee. That is the main purpose of the drafting of the new Clause. It will be seen that the succeeding Subsections of the Clause introduce no new matter at all beyond what was recited in the Bill when it left the Committee, but we hope that this form of drafting will be more apt to express the purpose of the Bill with regard to these contracts.

4.35 P.m.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: Before any Amendment is moved to the Clause I would like to ask for a little more information. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that, in the main, this Clause is a redraft of the position as it was elucidated in the Standing Committee upstairs. As the right hon. Gentleman has referred to the question of the special premium to be paid in the case of pigs transferred from curers who have made a direct contract, I should like a little more information as to what other classes of the variants now set out in this Clause will carry a premium in a particular contract. I have specially in mind the variant referred to as the open offer contract. I have had a little experience of this matter in the past, and I heard reference made in the Standing Committee to the premium usually paid in respect of an open offer contract. Having regard to the relevations which were made in the Standing Committee concerning the extremely narrow margin which is accorded to the bacon curers under the formula attached to the subsidy arrangement, and if the figure has been properly arrived at under compromise as set out in the Clause in the case of the transferred variant contract, that is, 1s. per pig, I should like an assurance that there will be no higher rate of premium charged in respect of any other variant in the Clause.

4.37 P.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: By leave of the House, I would like to reply to the right hon. Gentleman's very natural enquiry. The only variant for which a premium is prescribed in the Clause is that of the transferred pig, that is to say, Is. per pig. In Sub-section (4) of the new Clause all that is said is that the open contract will be rewarded by what is called an allocation premium. No attempt is made in the Clause to say what that premium should be. It is a question for discussion and negotiation when the contract comes to be established between the hoards. I am aware of the point at the back of the mind of the right hon. Gentleman, but on consideration I feel that the allocation premium was not a matter which could with profit be fixed by this House, and that it was the best course to define it as an allocation premium and leave the matter for negotiation by those interested, so that a fair result might be obtained.

4.38 p.m.

Mr. Alexander: I do not understand how it is incumbent upon the Minister, whether by agreement with the interests or not, to insert a maximum premium in the case of one class of variant contract without fixing some maximum in respect of other contracts. I cannot understand the general argument with regard to leaving X, Y or Z matters for discussion or settlement in a general contract negotiation. If it is found necessary to put a limit on the premium to be paid in any one of the five variants in this long contract Clause, surely it is necessary that it should be so in the case of each one of them. The matter is of fundamental importance.

4.39 p.m.

Mr. Price: I am sure that in connection with the group contract variant we are all in agreement with the much better grouping of the terms of contract than that which we had in the original Bill. Can the Minister say whether those who contract under the group contract variant will be able, if they desire, to select a factory for the cure of their pigs? Will they become eligible for the bonus or the premium which is apportioned for the others, or will they have to take the factory provided for them by the board? It is a matter upon which we should be clear, as I can conceive that that position might arise in some circumstances.

4.40 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: In reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) I recognise that possibly there is a logical case for saying that, if we give a specified premium in the case of the transferred pig, we ought to place a maximum upon the premium for the allocated pig. There was a discussion about this matter, and it was thought that some premium ought to be given. It was too low in the opinion of some hon. Members of the Committee, but we felt that the open contract, which is the most valuable form of contract from the point of view of the boards and the scheme, is not so easy to fix as this particular narrow class of transferred pig, and this matter is best left in suspense for proper discussion between the boards concerned. In answer to the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Price) who asked a question as to group contracts, the position is that group contracts will all be open contracts, and, of

course, they will attract the allocation premium.

4.41 p.m.

Colonel Clarke: I should like to ask the Minister whether it is the intention, if this Clause is passed, that this wording should appear on the contract forms which have to be signed by the producers of pigs. I hope that it will be possible to find something rather simpler. Otherwise it will be a definite deterrent to those who like really to understand what they are signing.

Mr. Morrison: There is no necessity why the contract should follow the terms of the Bill. I agree that perhaps it is not easy at first sight to understand the phraseology of the new Clause, but those who will be considering these matters of the new Clause will be those who will be advising the board, and they can draw up their contracts as they please. I share the view of my hon. and gallant Friend, and hope that they will draw them up in language which can easily be understood.

4.43 P.m.

Mr. Turton: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 51, to leave out "one shilling, of which sixpence," and to insert:
not less than two shillings, of which not less than eightpence.
There are on the Order Paper three Amendments to this Clause with which, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will deal together, as they are really consequential and form one framework. They are based upon a long history of equitable distribution, which has been discussed both within and without Parliament. The measure of equitable distribution proposed by the Minister in this Bill has met with a great deal of disfavour in many parts of the country. Farmers who live near a bacon factory, and who, in some cases, are members of a co-operative bacon factory, dislike the principle of their contracts being broken and their pigs being sent to distant parts of the country, where farmers have not the same confidence and where in the past they were not satisfied with the grading system. For that reason we have contrived to secure, if it is absolutely necessary for the contract to be broken and for the pig to be transferred, that the farmer and the factory whose


contract is broken shall receive fair compensation for what has occurred. The Minister earlier said that he attached great importance to the open contract, and I would like to deal with that matter on this Amendment in so far as it is relevant. If we are to have regard to what has happened in the past, most of the long contracts that are entered into under this Bill will not be open contracts, but will be what are described as nominated buyer contracts. The number of open contracts decreased during the contract periods of 1935, 1936 and 1937, and in 1937 out of 1,800,000 direct contracts there were only 21,000 open contracts.
The Minister of Agriculture said that the shilling which he is offering is a solace to wounded feelings. I hope that on reconsideration he will say that it is something more than that, because when he moved the shilling in Committee he said:
It may be asked why, in such circumstances, anything should be given to the curer at all, but clearly that is necessary, because the curers have in the past put themselves to some expense in securing pigs by canvassing for contracts, and, if that amount of their labour is entirely wasted, they are, of course, entitled to some compensation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee C), 24th May, 1938, col. 222.]
May I deal first with the question whether the curer should receive 6d. or 8d. per pig? The Minister suggests that the curers are entitled to canvass for pigs, and that is the generally accepted method
throughout the country. The curers appoint agents to canvass and they pay them so much for each contract obtained. As that is the method, I should have thought that it would have been fair to have given the deprived curer adequate compensation, in fact as much as he has to pay the canvassing agent for each pig contracted for. At present, of the factories that pay agents the Yorkshire factory pays the least to the agent. They pay 9d. for each contract that is ratified and 6d. for each contract that does not go through. If through no fault of the agent the contract does not go through, he receives 6d., but if the contract goes through, he receives 9d.
If the Bill goes through in its present form, with the provision of is. per pig compensation, that is, 6d. for the curer and 6d. for the producer, the result will be that even the Yorkshire factory, which pays the least to its canvassing agents, will be losing 3d. per pig on every trans-

ferred pig. That does not seem to me to be quite equitable, and I hardly think that Parliament would consent to that loss being incurred by the deprived factory. There are factories which pay as much as 4s. per pig to the canvassers. The majority of the Midland factories, which appoint agents to come round Yorkshire, pay 2s. for every pig contracted for. When one considers these large figures that are paid at the present time, and which have been paid in the past, one comes to the conclusion that the Minister's suggested compromise of 1s. per pig is quite inadequate.
Let me deal with the position of the producer of the pig who, the Minister says, should be compensated to the extent of 6d. per pig. The right hon. Gentleman is trying to persuade producers to go in for the open contract. In the case of the open contract he will get what is called the allocated premium. My right hon. Friend did not tell the right hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) what exactly the allocated premium would be, but I do not think I should be far wrong if I suggested that many farmers in this country, and many who are in the bacon industry, believe that the allocated premium will amount to 2s. per pig. In other words, it will be a similar bonus to the bonus offered in the last contract. As the farmer under an open contract is to get 2s. per pig bonus, surely in justice he ought to receive the same or very nearly the same if, through no fault of his own, the nominated buyer contract is transformed into an open contract, because the effect of transferring a pig from one factory to another is that the farmer is put into the same position as if he had nominated no curer.
The sum that I am suggesting is that the registered producer should receive for each transferred pig a sum of is. 4d., to make the whole amount given for transferred pigs the same as we anticipate will be given for the open contract pig, namely, 2s. I suggest that that is a reasonable sum. We had a discussion on this matter in Committee as to what would be the proper compensation, and I think what weighed with a good many hon. Members was the very clear and authoritative statement made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) as to how the Bill will work out for the curers and how much money they will make per pig. He told us that,


taking a seven-score pig, the amount paid to the producer would be 87s. 6d., and that the amount obtained by the bacon factory for the dead pig would be 94s. 9d., excluding the offals. He remarked: "What a small margin we are making; we are only making a margin of 7s. 3d., and the offals." But my hon. and learned Friend did not tell us what they expect to make on the offals. The amount they will expect to make on the offals is 12s. 6d. to 12s. 9d. Therefore, the profit that the curer expects to make per pig under the Bill is 20s. I can assure the House that if the farmer was going to make as much profit as that he would be feeling far differently about the terms of this Bill.
Out of that margin of 20s. profit per pig that the curers will make, according to my hon. and learned Friend's figures, is it unreasonable to suggest that 2s. per pig should be given in the case of the transferred pig? I agree that out of the 20s. one or two items which were mentioned by my hon. and learned Friend in the Committee stage have to be taken, amounting to 5s.—carriage of the pig 2s. 6d., insurance 6d. and levies 2s. I take his figures as he gave them. There is, therefore, 15s. profit on each of these pigs. Is it unreasonable that from that net profit of 15s., 2s. should be paid for each of the pigs that is transferred? Hon. Members may think that this is a very small matter, but I can assure them that on the question of bacon production and pig production the shilling looms very large in the minds of the farmers. There is a disinclination to transfer pigs, but if they are to be transferred, then it is only reasonable that the farmer should not lose by having his pigs transferred.

4.56 p.m.

Commander Bower: I beg to second the Amendment, and I would ask my right hon. Friend to bear in mind that this is not only a question of pigs, but there is also a human problem involved. I would underline the last remark of my hon. Friend, namely, that the farmers attach tremendous importance to the shilling. It seems to me only right that they should have this benefit when, possibly at great inconvenience to themselves, they consent to this transfer of pigs. It is a small matter when compared with the large sums which are made

in other directions, but I can assure my right hon. Friend that the farmers, at any rate the farmers in the North of England, would be more than grateful to him if he would give them what is asked for in this Amendment.

4.57 P.m.

Mr. T. Williams: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reject the Amendment. From my point of view, and particularly in view of the fact that we are dealing with a so-called marketing scheme, I regard the submission of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) as being more or less humbug. It is more related to the past, to the pre-marketing scheme days, than to the present or the future of any marketing schemes which ought to be effective and efficient if we want the producers of pigs or of other agricultural products to get that to which they are entitled. It is the old policy of grasping the last penny from any source so long as it can be obtained for the producer in the initial stages. It is on the cards that these initial payments ultimately rob the producer of his real heritage, if the marketing schemes are to be permitted to carry on.
The hon. Member is arguing ostensibly for a certain increased premium over and above that offered by the right hon. Gentleman and he asks it for the so-called canvasser, not for the producer of the pig. He based the whole of his case on the sum of money paid by the curers to canvassers to ensure that an adequate number of pigs is available for them. He spoke of some canvassers being paid as much as 4s. per pig. He did not tell the full story. He did not tell the story of what happened in Yorkshire in 1936, when the Yorkshire bacon factory was without any pigs and it was ready to pay anybody any price almost to get pigs from anywhere, not contract pigs, but pigs from anywhere, for that factory. If he had made out that case he would perhaps have been able to put a better case than he did.

Mr. Turton: That allegation requires substantiation. Will the hon. Member tell me when the Yorkshire bacon factory was without pigs?

Mr. Williams: If the hon. Member will contain his soul in patience, the A B C of the transaction will be given to him and the House. This Bacon Bill is


designed to help the producers of pigs and the bacon industry and, incidentally, certain concessions are made to those who produce pigs, and that concession is in the sh-ape of a subsidy. They are given guarantees that in certain circumstances restrictions of imports of bacon will be applied. As a quid pro quo for these two concessions to the pig-producing and the bacon industry those people are expected to organise the industry. Therefore, it is not a question of providing excess payments for canvassers for pigs for curing purposes. What the House should really consider is the best possible means of marketing this commodity; remove these canvassers between the pig producer and the bacon factory and allow the marketing board to do its job so that the production of pigs and bacon can become really an economic proposition.
If the producer of a number of pigs has entered into a bargain with certain curers that they shall be sent to a particular factory, and it is then found, for the convenience of the industry as a whole having regard to transport and output, that the pigs should be sent to other factories, I do not see why the producer of the pigs should receive an excess payment because they have gone to B factory instead of A factory. I do not see any justification for that, and I feel that the premium imported into the new Clause is a step in the wrong direction. The right hon. Gentleman has made one concession; I hope he is not going to make a second concession, and that he will stand by the new Clause, which we should prefer to see without any premium at all. The reason for the uneconomic bacon industry was not referred to by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton at all. When he talked about a canvasser receiving is. 3d. and 2s. per pig he was living in an age when there was but a very small bacon output, when there was a large surplus bacon-producing capacity and when curers were obliged to adopt artificial means to get the maximum number of pigs for a factory to make it economic.

Mr. Turton: The hon. Member cannot have heard my speech. I said that some had been paid and that some were in fact being paid right up to the end of 1937 and the beginning of 1938. I think the hon. Member should keep these facts in mind. Is he going to substantiate his allegation that the Yorkshire Bacon

Factory was without pigs in 1936? He has ridden away. I challenge him to substantiate the allegation.

Mr. Williams: If the hon. Member will contain his soul in patience for a few minutes he will be given the date, but not by me. I want to repeat what I have said. The hon. Member made out a case based upon the situation in the past, when the factory capacity was nearly double the output of pigs. If the major intentions and purposes of this Bill are going to fructify, all the arguments of the hon. Member go by the board, and no premiums will become necessary. I hope the Minister will resist the Amendment and express regret that he has gone so far as he has in embodying a premium in the new Clause.

5.5 P.m.

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Ramsbotham): The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) referred to the long history of this matter. We certainly had a long battle upstairs in Committee about it, and as a result his Amendment was not accepted by the Committee. His proposal to-day differs slightly from that in Committee and is even less attractive. He no longer wants to increase the premium from 1s. to 2s. but asks that it shall not be less than 2s.; that curers should not get less than 8d., and the producer is to have whatever is left. I am afraid that we cannot accept the proposal for the reasons given by the hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), to which I also want to add one or two others. There are two main positions to be secured by the Bill. The first is that open contract shall become as far as possible the normal form of contract. The second is that the financial structure of the Bill shall be preserved, because it is based upon a compromise between the pig producing and bacon curing side of the industry. A balance has been struck between a bacon price of 94s. 9d. per cwt. and a pig price of 12s. 6d. per score. The matter has been agreed to by the two industries, and the 1s. bonus proposed in the new Clause has also been agreed. Any addition would at once upset the balance.
As regards open contracts, the Bill leaves the bonus open for negotiation. A sum of 2s. has been suggested as an in-


ducement to producers to offer pigs on open contract, but one thing is quite clear, that at any rate it should be more than the bonus for contracts which the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton has in mind. If his contracts are to attract 2s. it is quite clear that more desirable contracts should attract more, and that would upset the whole balance of the arrangement and destroy the two main positions on which the Bill is built. The producer who nominates a curer does no service at all if his nomination is accepted. His only possible claim will be for some compensation for the less favourable treatment he receives compared with the producer who is allowed to contract with the curer of his choice. In fact, however, there is no reason why he should be financially worse off because his pigs are transferred. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton has still in mind the old situation and does not realise the reforms we are attempting to make by the Bill. Under Clause 31 a uniform system of grading will now take place and will remove certain abuses which in past times have deterred pig producers from contracting with this or that factory. There is also a Clause which provides that a pig producer may receive an additional price for loss of weight in transport. These considerations effectively dispose of the suggestions of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton. I am sure that if a bonus on the scale he suggests was permitted it would tend to discourage producers going in for open contracts; and that is the last thing we want. Undoubtedly a premium of 2s. on transferred pigs would place a very heavy burden on curers to which they have not agreed. If they have to pay this on a transferred contract they would obviously have to pay a higher bonus still on an open contract. For these reasons we are unable to accept the Amendment.

5.10 p.m.

Mr. Spens: In view of the personal reference by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) to me, may I say one word? I am not going into the figures I gave in Committee, but when the hon. Member talks about a curer relying on a price for offals of over 12s. and being able to add that to the margin between the price of a seven-score pig, and gets up to a figure of 20s. as being the profit, I must enter my protest. The

whole success of this Bill depends on good will between farmers and curers, and to let it go out from this House that under this arrangement curers are going to make a profit of 20s. per pig is more calculated to cause dissatisfaction between producers and curers than anything else that could possible have been said. I should like to remind the hon. Member of the figures I gave in Committee, which showed clearly that the 7s. 3d. difference between the price per cwt. of bacon and the price of a seven-score pig would go in the extras which curers will have to pay. What they will get for the offal is much nearer 9s. than 12s., and that is all they are going to have left to carry on their factories, to pay their rent, their overhead charges and their distributive costs, and if this is going to be written down many curers will be left with no profits at all. In every single case the profit will be something very much less than Is. per pig, and to talk of curers getting a profit of 20s. per pig out of this scheme is a suggestion which should be contradicted, and contradicted at once.

Amendment to the proposed Clause negatived.

5.13 p.m.

Mr. Alexander: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, at the end of line 54, to add:
The allocation premium in respect of group contracts or open offer contracts shall not exceed one shilling per pig.
I support with very great good will the general conclusion arrived at in the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) with regard to what the margins are in respect of bacon curing. During the last six months there is no question at all that bacon curers in this country have been losing instead of making considerable sums of money. Under the bargain which the Minister has been able to secure, the margin left to the bacon curers is so exceedingly small that if there are any further raids upon bacon curers' funds up to the time the pig reaches the factory, we shall in all probability turn what is possibly a small estimated profit into an actual loss. According to calculations which have been submitted to me, and I understand have been sent to the Minister, the actual deficit on each pig under the present arrangement will be about 1s. 6d., and that deficit is to come out of any profit


which may be made out of the handling of the offals. It means that the proceeds from offals will be the only fund on which the factory overhead charges and administrative and other expenses can be met and therefore, the figures which are in the mind of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) are very much exaggerated.
While I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) is right in principle in saying that there ought to be no premium in respect of these pigs contracts, I think that, having regard to the fact that the Minister has compromised in the case of the transferred pig at the figure of 1s. a pig, we ought to be assured in the House that there will be no higher premium than that in respect of any other class of pigs contract which is entered into under the scheme. I think that our case on that is unanswerable. With regard to the premiums specified in the Clause in connection with the allocation of the transferred pig, surely the curer who loses the pig suffers some loss owing to the fact that he will have a lower throughput, but I cannot see that it makes any difference to the pig producer. It might be that there would be some loss to him in respect of the taking of the pig over a certain distance from the farm to the factory if it were not for the fact that a sum is laid down for the transit shrinkage allowance. Therefore, from that point of view, there is no case for the pig producer having an extra sum. If that applies to that class of contracts, it applies equally to the open allocation contract. In fact, all that is being done with regard to the transferred pig is to adopt the allocation principle. The pigs are being taken away from the tied factory and put on the open allocation plane, and whatever premium the Minister considers to be the right one for that class must be the right premium for the other. Therefore, I maintain that there is no case for a higher premium, which ultimately would have to come out of the losses of the bacon curer or the price which the consumer pays for the bacon.
The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton challenged my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley, and as I whispered to my hon. Friend a word or two about the situation, I feel that I ought to accept the responsibility for his answer to the hon. Member's question. I

am informed, on what I think, from my own inquiries, is probably good authority, that in 1936, when there was a shortage of pigs to certain bacon factories, a company which was very short of pigs had to enter into an arrangement with what was really a finance company. I believe it was known as the Counties Pig Finance Company, Limited. In my view, that company certainly was not able to offer a whole range of pigs that had been duly contracted for. The pigs were really "paper pigs," if I may use that term.
The company undertook, for a commission of 4s. a pig, to supply the factories that were short of pigs. In my view, having regard to all the circumstances then obtaining, the only way that could have been done was for the finance company to interpose itself between the pig producer and the bacon curers concerned, and then go round the auction market, buy as many pigs as possible, and transfer them to the curers who were short for the very nice little commission of 4s. a pig. To use such an illustration as an argument for putting into the Bill a permanent imposition on the industry seems to me to be altogether unreasonable. I do not say that it was the Yorkshire bacon factory which was responsible for that, but I understand that the Counties Pig Finance Company had some Yorkshire connection. Therefore, I think that on the basis of the general case, we can well ask the Minister, if in the interests of the financing of the industry he limits the premium to 1s. in the case of the pig which is allocated away from bacon curers who obtain pigs on a tied contract, he has no case for leaving it to negotiation and for having a larger premium in respect of other classes of pig. On those grounds. I think that the right hon. Gentleman will do a very great deal for the industry in general if he will accept the Amendment which I have moved.

5.21 p.m.

Mr. Turton: The Labour party are coming out in a new realm—they want protection for big business and they want to secure that the business shall make large profits in turning out bacon. That is a very curious realm for them to enter. A little time ago I read a paper which promised guaranteed prices for foodstuffs, but now we know that guaranteed prices are not to be guaranteed prices for the producers, but for the processors. That


can only be because it happens that a section of the Socialist party has its money in the bacon business.

Mr. T. Williams: The hon. Member cannot carry that argument very far, because it is only about To minutes ago that he was arguing, not for the producer of the pigs, but for the canvasser who sends them to the markets.

Mr. Turton: The hon. Member cannot have listened to my last speech; if he had, he would not have fallen into that error. What I said in support of the first Amendment was that when a curing factory has paid 8d. for a pig, it is unjust that another curing factory—for instance, the Co-operative factory at Hitchin, which may sometimes be short of pigs—should get them without paying 8d. a pig. That seems to me to be common justice. Before coming to the point as to whether rich curers can afford 2s. or 1s., I wish to deal with the point made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) about the Yorkshire factory. The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) said that there was a time in 1936 when the Yorkshire factory was very short of pigs. I asked the hon. Gentleman either to withdraw that statement or to justify it, and quite rightly he put the burden on his commander-in-chief, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough. I listened carefully to the remarks of the right hon. Member for Hillsborough, and at no time did he say that the Yorkshire factory was short of pigs; but he said that in 1936 a company in Yorkshire was securing pigs for the bacon factories all over the country at a cost of 4s. a pig. In reply to the right hon. Gentleman, who does not regard that method of finance as being very desirable, I would point out that other companies, such as hire-purchase companies, charge not 4s., but a very much larger sum.
The Counties Pig Finance Company is, in fact, had the right hon. Gentleman but known it, a subsidiary company of the Farmers' Co-operative Yorkshire factory, and it lends money cheaply to farmers in order to enable them to buy feeding-stuffs for their pigs. By that means, pig production in Yorkshire was assisted to such an extent that the Yorkshire factory was always full and Yorkshire provided the

Minister with a large quota of the pig contracts all over the country. I should like to hear from the Minister, when he replies, whether he takes the same view as the right hon. Member for Hillsborough about the activities of the Counties Pig Finance Company, because it is by means of such finance companies that we can secure that these contracts are fulfilled. Can the curers pay 2s. for an open contract pig? I hope I did not do my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) an injustice when I quoted the figures which he gave to the Committee regarding the costings of this bacon. I said that, on my hon. and learned Friend's figures, taking offals at from 12s. 6d. to 12s. 9d.—which I am told is the regular price for offals—that leaves a profit of £1, from which there has to be deducted one or two items amounting to 5s. That means a profit of 15s. a pig.

Mr. Spens: What does my hon. Friend mean by "profit"? Does he mean a profit which the curers can expend in dividends? I would point out to him that they still have to pay the whole of the factory, labour and distribution expenses. I assure my hon. Friend that I am speaking with knowledge when I say that there is nothing by way of profit; it is all taken in overhead expenses.

Mr. Turton: It may be that we should call it a gross profit and not a net profit, but according to these figures, they have 15s. a pig. Cannot they afford to pay the extra 2s. for an open contract pig? As my hon. and learned Friend knows very well, a large factory which has a turnover of 2,000 or more pigs a week needs a smaller gross profit per pig than a small factory does, and these figures, with the 2s., will be adequate for any large and efficient factory. The position at the present time is this. In England, farmers are receiving some 2s. less per score than farmers in Denmark are receiving for similar pigs, and the reason they are receiving less is that we have in this country a great number of factories which are less efficient than they should be. By rationalisation we hope to remedy that position. If the curing businesses are to be assured large profits, as is suggested in the Amendment, there will never be that rationalisation, and for that reason I hope the Minister will not accept the Amendment.

5.28 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander), in speaking on an earlier Amendment, alluded to his desire to place a limit on the allocation premium, and he has now put forward a manuscript Amendment to that effect. I am afraid I cannot ask the House to accept that Amendment at this stage, because I believe that the original reason which I gave for preferring that this matter should be left to bargaining is a sound one. After all, we have heard speeches in the House which show that hon. Members on all sides are well aware that the best hope for the prosperity of this industry lies in an increase in efficiency on the curing side as well as on the producing side. In order to get that, it is necessary to get a throughput of pigs which is suited to the premises in question, so that their operations can be conducted economically. For that purpose, the most valuable form of contract is undoubtedly an open contract where no curer is suggested by name. The Marketing Board can allot, out of the contracts available to them, the appropriate number to each factory, so as to secure that the scheme shall work to the best advantage. That being so, I do not see that there is a case for saying here and now what the limit on the premium for the allocated contract should be. I think that matter should be left to bargaining between the two boards.
The right hon. Gentleman has given some interesting facts about the expenses of the factories and how narrow, in his view, is the margin of profit. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) seems to hold a contrary view as to the gains which are likely to accrue to the bacon factories. I was at first greatly struck by the figures which he gave showing a certain profit but my amazement was cured when I learned that he was referring to gross and not net profits. A gross profit does not impress me much, if I know that a large number of deductions have to be made from it before anything is realised as gain by those who run the business. My duty, as I conceive it, is to try to strike a fair balance in this matter between the interests of the producers and those of the curers. I resisted a previous Amendment because I thought it would work unfairly to the curers. I cannot advise the House to accept this Amendment because I do

not think it would work out fairly in every case to the producers.
I agree with the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) that in the new state of affairs to which we are looking forward it would be desirable that all contracts should be open contracts but we have to remember that we are not living in that world yet. We have to deal, in the first instance, with a transition stage. Commerce, in this as in other cases, has settled in certain channels and it may be found necessary at first to offer some inducements having regard to the existing state of affairs and the normal methods of business which are followed at the present time. If the case for the curer is as strong as the right hon. Gentleman has made it out to be, the Bacon Marketing Board can put all these considerations forcibly before the Pigs Marketing Board when it comes to discussion of the question of what size the allocation premium should be. If, as a result of their negotiations, they fail to come to a satisfactory conclusion the Bill contains, in Clause 22, provisions for arbitration on a matter of this sort, so that a fair settlement between the contending claims can be reached. I see the case for fixing the premium on the transfer pigs contract because, as I say, we are still in a state of transition where that is desirable, but I would rather leave the question of the allocation premium for the open contract to be discussed as a matter of bargaining between the two Boards concerned, with ultimate resort to arbitration should they fail to compose their differences by the ordinary methods of negotiation.

Question, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Clause," put, and negatived.

Clause added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Proceedings subsequent to determination of forms of contract.)

(1) Where forms of long contract have been determined, the Pigs Marketing Board shall forthwith publish, in such manner as it thinks best calculated to bring the matter to the notice of registered producers of pigs and registered curers, a notice stating that the forms have been determined, and specifying a place at which registered producers and registered curers can obtain copies thereof free of charge, and inviting registered produces to declare to the board within a specified time and in a specified manner, in relation to each of the main forms of contract, if there is more than one—



(a) the quantities of pigs, of each of the descriptions mentioned in the form of contract, which they are respectively prepared to sell to registered curers for delivery during the contract period under a long contract or long contracts;
(b) the times at which they are prepared to deliver the pigs thereunder;
(c) whether or not they desire to avail themselves of the group contract arrangements; and
(d) whether or not they wish, in relation to all or any of the pigs which they are willing to contract do deliver (not being pigs contracted to be delivered under contracts in the group contract variant of the form of contract), to nominate a curer as the person to whom they wish the pigs to be sold, and, if so, what is his name and address.

(2) The said notice shall also embody a statement of the circumstances, if any (being such circumstances as the board may determine), in which, where a producer has nominated a curer as the person to whom he wishes pigs to be sold, the board may nevertheless cause those pigs to be sold to another curer:

Provided that if no factory rationalisation scheme has come into force by the expiration of two years from the passing of this Act, or such lesser period as the Minister may order, or if such a scheme which comes into force ceases to have effect by reason of an order for the revocation thereof, the foregoing provisions of this Sub-section shall cease to have effect and, where the producer has so nominated a curer, the board shall in no circumstances be entitled to cause the pigs in question to be sold otherwise than to that curer.

(3) Where within the time and in the manner specified in the notice aforesaid a registered producer declares to the Pigs Marketing Board that he is willing to sell pigs under long contracts, the declaration shall, subject to the following provisions of this Section, operate as an irrevocable authority to the board to enter on his behalf into such contracts or contracts in the appropriate variant or variants of the main form or main forms of contract as the board may determine.

(4) The authority conferred on the hoard as aforesaid shall be so exercised as to secure that no producer is, under the contracts entered into by virtue of that authority, under obligation to deliver, either altogether or at any time within the contract period, more pigs or more pigs of any description than he has declared to the board that he is willing to contract to deliver either altogether or at that time under long contracts (or, if there is more than one main form of contract, under long contracts in variants of that one of those main forms which is specified in that behalf in his declaration).

(5) The contracts shall be made with such registered curer or curers as the board may determine, so however, that in so far as a producer has nominated a curer as the person to whom he wishes pigs to be sold, the board

shall not cause those pigs to be sold otherwise than to that curer except in the circumstances specified in a statement embodied by virtue of Sub-section (2) of this Section in the notice published under Sub-section (1) thereof.

(6) Where the board reasonably believes that a producer has declared that he is willing to sell more pigs or more pigs of any description than he would, apart from circumstances beyond his control, he in a position to deliver out of pigs bred or purchased when not more than sixteen weeks old by him or his predecessor in his business and thereafter kept on premises in Great Britain occupied for the purposes of that business by him or his predecessor therein, the board shall in any case restrict the pigs or, as the case may be, the pigs of that description, which he contracts to sell under long contracts, to the number of pigs or pigs of that description which in the opinion of the board he will, apart from such circumstances, be in a position so to deliver:

Provided that the board may by general or special determination from time to time exempt from this Sub-section such producers as may be specified in the determination.

(7) The Pigs Marketing Board shall so exercise its powers of making contracts under this Section as to secure that the total quantity of pigs, or of pigs of any description, contracted to be delivered in the contract period in question under long contracts does not exceed such quantity as the Development Board may direct in relation to pigs generally, or, as the case may be, in relation to pigs of that description.—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

5.36 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause is of the same kind as the Clause with which we have just dealt. It is really a redraft of Sub-sections (2) to (6) of the original Clause 20, and it has been rendered necessary by the Amendments which were accepted in Committee and to which I referred earlier. Subsection (1) of the Clause replaces the original Sub-section (2) of Clause 20, but as there are certain differences in wording I had better refer to them in detail. In the new Clause reference is made to alternative main forms of contract for which provision is made in Sub-section (1) of the new Clause to which the House has just given a Second Reading. If more than one main form of contract is determined, the producer will have the option as to which form he wishes his pigs to be sold under and all the variants set out in the previous new Clause would apply to each form of contract. A drafting alteration has been made requiring producers to


"declare" instead of "intimate" their wishes. As so much flows from their decision on this point, we think the word "declare" is more appropriate than "intimate" in this connection. In the previous new Clause it was provided that the group contract was to be a variant of each of the main forms of contract. It is still desired that producers should have the option of deciding whether they wish their pigs to be sold under a group contract or not. The other Sub-sections of this proposed new Clause repeat, in some cases in more apt language, the provisions which were in the Bill when it left Committee, and I recommend the redraft to the House as a very ingenious attempt to overcome the difficulties created by the Amendments made in Committee.

5.39 p.m.

Mr. Alexander: If this new Clause is, as the Minister says, a clarification of the position, I am bound to say that, having read it, I find myself in a legal fog as opaque as that in which I often found myself when we were considering these matters in the Standing Committee. The particular form of Parliamentary draftsmanship which is at the disposal of the Minister seems to be very brilliant legally, but whether it has succeeded in clarifying the subject or not is another matter. I therefore confess that I look at this new Clause with considerable dubiety, but on account of the difficulty which I am sure most hon. Members will experience in dealing with such phraseology, I think the House will have to be content with the assurance given by the Minister that the only real alterations involved are those which he has enumerated.
If I am not out of order, however, I would like to make some remarks on the title of the new Clause—(Proceedings subsequent to determination of forms of contract). Having regard to what the right hon. Gentleman said on the new Clause which has just been approved by the House, I would express this wish to him. Considering the difficulties already enumerated by me as to the margins available under the formula adopted by the Ministry in regard to the subsidy, I hope the Ministry will undertake that the premiums which are to be fixed in respect of the various forms of contract shall not be at such a rate as will seriously injure the industry concerned. I did not ask

the House to divide on my Amendment to the previous new Clause because of the remarks of the Minister, but now, speaking of the proceedings which are to be taken subsequent to the determination of forms of contract, I should be glad of an assurance that the views of processors in regard to this margin will be taken into account.
I can see that the object of economy and improved efficiency, by which the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) rightly sets so much store, will be defeated unless there are such arrangements between producer and curer as will make it possible for the processing industry to live. If it does not live, the producer will have to rely upon the old form of trade anarchy for his market for all his pigs except those which go to the pork market. I hope I have not transgressed the bounds of order in addressing these remarks to the Minister on the title of the new Clause. I think we must rest on the assurance of the Minister that the form of the Clause is not substantially different from that which was considered in the Standing Committee—apart from the small variations which he has mentioned—and if he can give me an assurance on the other matter, I do not think it will be necessary to divide against the new Clause.

5.42 p.m.

Mr. Price: I, too, find some difficulty in understanding the provisions of the new Clause, and I wish to draw particular attention to the proviso to Subsection (2) dealing with conditions which may prevail if there is no factory rationalisation scheme in force at the end of the two years. As I understand it, the Sub-section provides that a producer who has nominated a curer to whom he wishes to supply pigs, cannot be compelled by the board to send those pigs elsewhere, if a rationalisation scheme has not come into force at the end of two years. That seems to put a premium on delaying rationalisation. I do not like the idea that if rationalisation is not in operation within two years it shall be possible for producers to select whatever factories they like. In that way the process whereby we hope that the board will have more and more control over the direction in which the pigs are going, will be held up indefinitely. I may be wrong in my interpretation of this proviso, and I


hope I am, but, as I read it, it seems to contain an inducement to the postponement of rationalisation.

5.44 P.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I have indicated the small changes of substance which this redraft involves, and though I am not unprepared to receive criticism as to the clarity of the language, I must remind hon. Members that we had some difficulty with Clause 20 in its original form in Committee, and it must be evident that great difficulties confront any draftsman who tries to find statutory language in which to comprehend all the possibilities of any contract. With regard to what the right hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) said, I desire that there should be fairness as between both the curing and the producing sides of the industry, because if there is not, or if one of the partners feels that there is not, the result must be to impede the progress of both, but I think that under the machinery provided by the Bill the two parties will see that their interests lie together and that they will work harmoniously.
With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Price), as to Sub-section (2) and the proviso thereto, the proviso actually takes the place of Sub-section (6) of the original Clause 20, which had a similar effect, namely, to take away from the board the right to transfer pigs if at the end of two years there is no factory rationalisation scheme. I think that this, far from being a deterrent to getting on with a factory rationalisation scheme, is an inducement to the Bacon Board to do so, because the Bacon Board are interested, as representing the curers, in those previous provisions which permitted of the allocation of pigs so as to secure an economic throughput. It is to their interest that the right to transfer pigs from one curer to another should be in the hands of the board, and what this proviso says is that unless the rationalisation scheme is in being before the end of the period prescribed, the power to interfere with contracts and get this economic throughput will lapse, along with all the protection to the industry thus provided.

5.47 p.m.

Mr. Turton: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 51, at the end, to insert:
and in the exercise of such power of transferring pigs the board shall have regard to the time when the offer so to contract was made by the producer, and an offer to contract nominating a particular registered curer shall not be transferred to another registered curer if an offer nominating the same curer made subsequently by another producer has not been or is not being transferred.
This is my last attempt to make this part of the Bill satisfactory, and it is an effort on my part that will not cost the curer or the Government anything. It merely asks that the principle of "First come, first served" shall operate in these contracts, and I submit, with all the weight that I can command, that it is a perfectly reasonable provision. If it is not accepted by the Minister, and he cannot give the farmers this security for which they ask, that those who are contracting shall be able to nominate the factory and feel confident that their pigs will go to that factory, contracts will not be made. This is a Bacon Industry Bill, but the bacon industry is not the whole of the pig industry. There is a large area of pork, and the aim of the Minister in all this legislation must be to keep the balance between pork and bacon, to do which he must be able to give the men who produce bacon the security that they desire. I come from an area where in the past hundreds and thousands of pigs used to go to the pork market, and it was the success of the first two contract periods that took from the pork market a great number of those pigs and resulted in the Yorkshire bacon factory being set up and that area of Yorkshire being turned over to bacon production. If those men cannot have the factory of the cooperative society in connection with which they are members, if they cannot be sure that by contracting early they will get to that factory, contracts will not be made under this Bill, and thousands of pigs will go again to the pork market.
We have heard throughout the whole of these discussions that the response to the contracts has always been slow at the beginning, and I know that those who represent the curers, like the right hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander), and those representing the farmers will both agree that it is vitally important for the industry to get early


contracts. I therefore put forward this Amendment, believing that if the Minister is able to accept it, he will get earlier contracting by producers. Those producers will put their contracts in early because they want to get to a particular factory, and they will get the security of knowing that if their contracts are in early, they will not be transferred, but that the latecomer, who really does not deserve well of the Minister or of the industry, will be transferred. I really think that in this question of pig contracts it is no bad thing to penalise the man who contracts late. Past history has been exactly the reverse. In the first two contract periods we find that the latecomer was not penalised, but was rewarded by bonuses of 3s. 6d. and 4s. per pig, and we do not want that repeated. I therefore ask the Minister to look at this Amendment very differently from the way in which he looked at the Amendment which we discussed a short time ago. In this case no money will change hands, and no inconvenience will be caused.

5.53 p.m.

Colonel Clarke: I beg to second the Amendment.
I, too, feel that "First come, first served" is a fair principle, and that if we are to induce producers to bring forward the requisite number of pigs, they must expect every fairness. It is due to people of energy and foresight who get their contracts in early that they should get the full benefit of that foresight.

5.54 p.m.

Mr. Ramsbotham: One of the Subsections of this new Clause provides that no pigs can be transferred except in the circumstances specified in a statement embodied in the notice published under Subsection (1) of the new Clause. I understand that the intention of this Amendment is to provide in the Bill that one of the specified circumstances shall be that no pigs offered shall be transferred if pigs under an offer nominating the same curer, but made subsequently, have not been transferred—in other words, "First come, first served." I am afraid there are very grave practical difficulties in the way of accepting this Amendment. In the first place, I would like to point out that the Amendment does not make it clear when the offer is made. Are we to

understand that the offer is made when the producer despatches it? If so, the board will not know when the offer was made. Or is it made when it is received by the board? This would make the time dependent on postal facilities.

Mr. Turton: That is English law, surely?

Mr. Ramsbotham: Moreover, this Amendment, placing its emphasis upon the time of the contract, would take no account of the different weight classes of pigs, and it would be a great mistake if the Pigs Board had to transfer a contract for Class I pigs, of from 7 to 8½ score, to a curer who only wanted another class of pig, simply because the Class I producer was next on the list for transfer. That would be a most unreasonable and intolerable consequence of the Amendment. Then again, suppose there are two producers, each of them situated within, say, five miles of a Yorkshire factory. It would probably be immaterial from the point of view of the scheme and the board's arrangements whether the one or the other was selected for transference of some pigs to, say, a curer in Wiltshire. But let a different example be taken. Take the case of a producer in Suffolk and a producer in Shropshire, both of whom have nominated a curer in Suffolk. If it were necessary to transfer pigs from one of those two producers to a factory in Birmingham, it would obviously be to the advantage of the scheme as a whole that the Shropshire producer's pigs should be so transferred. The proposed Amendment might make this impossible. The Amendment would gravely damage the capability of the board to secure the best, cheapest, and most economic transport arrangements, which is a major consideration, and I think that if the hon. Member considers that result of the Amendment, he will not seriously press it.

Amendment to the proposed Clause negatived.

Clause added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Pooling as between buyers of burden of allocation premiums.)

(1) As soon as may be after the end of every contract period, the Bacon Marketing Board shall ascertain in relation to each registered curer to whom allocated pigs have been delivered—



(a) the amount which bears to the total of the allocation premiums paid or payable by the buyers of allocated pigs the same proportion as the number of allocated pigs delivered to him bears to the total number of allocated pigs;
(b) the total amount of the allocation premiums paid or payable by him in respect of allocated pigs.

(2) There shall be paid to the Bacon Marketing Board by, or by the Bacon Marketing Board to, each such curer (according as in his case the amount mentioned in paragraph (a) of the last preceding Subsection exceeds or falls short of the amount mentioned in paragraph (b) thereof) a sum equal to the difference between those amounts.

(3) No sum shall be payable under Subsection (2) of this Section in respect of a contract period until three months after the conclusion of that period, but the board may make to, and by resolution require from, buyers of allocated pigs such payments on account of the sum which the board estimates will become payable by or to those buyers respectively under that Subsection as it may think proper, and any payment required from a curer by such a resolution shall be a debt due to the board and shall be recoverable accordingly; and any necessary adjustments shall be made at the expiration of the said three months.

(4) In this Section the expression "allocated pigs" means, in relation to a contract period, pigs delivered under long contracts for that period, being pigs in respect of which allocation premiums are payable.—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

5.59 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This new Clause is moved to enable a measure of pooling of allocation premiums to be placed at the disposal of the bacon curer. The task of distributing contracts among curers will fall to be done by the Pigs Marketing Board, and it will be a very difficult administrative task. As my hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions said just now, the ruling consideration ought to be the best transport arrangements that can be made, so that pigs are moved about as little as possible in order to secure efficiency. That consideration renders it impossible for the board to make a fair allocation of allocated and open contracts as between different curers, and it is, therefore, just that they should be able to pool these premiums over the holders of all of them. That is the purpose of the Clause. Sub-sections (1) and (2) provide that the burden of the allocation premiums shall be pooled

through the medium of the board among the curers who pay them so that ultimately each curer pays in respect of each allocated pig a sum arrived at by adding together all the premiums paid by all the curers and dividing by the number of allocated pigs. Sub-section (3) defers the final settlement till three months after the end of the contract period, but enables payments on account to be made by the board to curers and by curers to the board. Sub-section (4) merely defines the phrase "allocated pigs."

6.1 p.m.

Mr. Turton: I find great difficulty in understanding this new Clause. Fortunately, it is not one that the farmers will have to read. It will be for the big business men, the curers, to work it out. I would like to ask the Minister a question about the transferred pig premium. What benefit is it to pay this to the factory that takes the pigs away? I am not sure how this Clause will operate in view of that. If the factories are pooling the burden of allocation premiums, surely the whole of the benefit of 6d. per transferred pig is being taken away. It seems rather a waste of time for one factory to make a pretence of paying 6d. to another factory if they are really insuring against the risk of transferring by means of this pooling Clause.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: My hon. Friend will appreciate that this Clause deals with the pooling of the burden of allocation premiums and not with the benefits of receiving them. These burdens are all pooled together and shared equally by curers who receive pigs other than those pigs specifically nominated to them. I do not think my hon. Friend need fear that any difficulty will arise in regard to the curers themselves if the burden is spread equally.

Mr. Turton: Do I understand from the Minister that the curer who does not receive any transferred pigs will not have to pay any part of this pooling burden?

Mr. Morrison: That is so. It is only those curers who receive pigs in respect of which allocation premiums of one sort or another are payable.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Provisions as to transport of pigs on behalf of curers.)

(1) If the Bacon Marketing Board so determines with respect to any period, such expenses as may be specified in the determination of the board, being expenses of or incidental to the transport, by or on behalf of registered curers, of pigs to which the determination applies, shall, to such extent as may be specified in the determination, be shared, in the manner hereinafter specified, among the registered curers in proportion to the number of pigs for which they are respectively accountable for that period.

(2) A determination under Sub-section (1) of this Section may be made applicable to all or any of the following pigs:

(a) pigs delivered to registered curers during the period to which the determination relates under long contracts or contracts made in pursuance of a determination of the Development Board under Subsection (1) of Section eighteen of this Act, including pigs which, after being transported by or on behalf of a curer, are rejected by him;
(b) pigs slaughtered in that period, being pigs which are, by virtue of the provisions of this Act relating to curers who produce pigs, to be treated for the purposes of Part IV of this Act as pigs sold under long contracts;

and references in this Section to the number of pigs for which a registered curer is accountable for any period to which such a determination relates shall be construed as references to the number of pigs to which that determination applies which in that period are so delivered to, or, as the case may be, slaughtered by or on behalf of, that curer.

(3) Any such determination—

(a) may provide, as respects all or any specified classes of cases, that any pigs to which the determination applies shall he transported on behalf of the registered curer affected only by such person, in such manner, in pursuance of such contract and on such terms as may be specified (either generally or in relation to the particular curer or in relation to the particular pigs) in the determination, or, if and so far as the determination so provides, by the Bacon Marketing Board acting thereunder;
(b) may provide, as respects all or any specified classes of cases, either that the board shall itself defray all or any of the expenses of or incidental to the transport, by or on behalf of registered curers, of such pigs as aforesaid, or that it shall repay to the registered curers affected all or any of the said expenses respectively incurred by them, or that it shall pay to each of the registered curers affected in respect of all or any of the said expenses respectively incurred by them, such sums as may be specified in that behalf in the determination.
(c) may require that, in all or any specified classes of cases the registered curer affected shall insure any pigs to which the determination applies in such manner as may be specified (either generally or in

relation to the particular curer or in relation to the particular pigs) in the determination, or if and so far as the determination so provides by the Bacon Marketing Board acting thereunder.

(4) Any such determination may require any registered curer to act as respects the exercise of any option which he has under any contract for the purchase of pigs to which the determination applies, being an option affecting the extent to which the pigs will be transported by or on behalf of a curer, in such manner as may be specified in the determination, or if and so far as the determination so provides, by the Bacon Marketing Board acting thereunder, and where any such requirement is made by any determination, the determination may require any registered curer affected to pay to the Bacon Marketing Board an amount equal to any payment made to him or any deduction allowed to him from the price of any pigs to which the determination applies, being a payment or deduction to which he becomes entitled by reason of the exercise or, as the case may be, the non-exercise, of the option in question.

(5) Every determination under any of the foregoing provisions of this Section shall require the payment to the Bacon Marketing Board by each registered curer, in respect of each pig for which he is accountable for the period to which the determination relates, of a contribution of an amount specified in the determination, being such amount as the board estimates is as nearly as may be equal to the total expenses which it will incur by reason of the determination divided by the number of pigs to which the determination applies:

Provided that the board, if it appears that the amount specified as aforesaid will be insufficient or more than sufficient to make good to it the said expenses, may amend the determination by fixing a higher or lower amount, and thereupon the determination shall be deemed always to have had effect as so amended and any sums underpaid by any curer to the board shall be recoverable from him by the board as a debt and any sums overpaid by any curer shall be repaid or allowed to him by the board.

(6) The Bacon Marketing Board shall, at least six weeks before the beginning of the period to which a determination under the foregoing provisions of this Section relates, publish a draft I the determination in such manner as it thinks best adapted for the purpose of bringing the matter to the notice of the curers affected, and shall consider any representations made to it during the four weeks following the date of the publication of the draft by or on behalf of any of those curers, and may then make the determination either in the form of the draft or with modifications.

(7) If any registered curer causes any pig to be transported or insured in contravention of any determination in force under this Section, the Bacon Marketing Board shall by resolution impose upon, and shall recover from, him a monetary penalty not exceeding one pound for each pig so transported or insured.

For the purposes of this Sub-section—

(a) a curer who fails to insure a pig when he is required to do so by a determination shall be deemed to have caused that pig to be insured in contravention of that determination;
(b) a curer who contravenes any provision of a determination requiring him to act in a particular manner as respects the exercise of an option shall be deemed to have caused each pig affected by the contravention to be transported in contravention of the determination.

(8) The power conferred by the foregoing provisions of this Section on the Bacon Marketing Board to make a determination with respect to any period shall be construed as including power to specify, as the period to which the determination relates, a period beginning with a specified date and ending at the end of the contract period within which that date falls or at such earlier time as may be determined by the board.

(9) References in the foregoing provisions of this Section to pigs shall, in relation to pigs slaughtered before being transported by or on behalf of the curer, be construed as including references to the carcases thereof.

(10) Any sum duly required to be paid to the Bacon Marketing Board by a determination under the foregoing provisions of this Section shall be recoverable by that board as a debt.

(11) The Bacon Marketing Board may—

(a) contract with any person for the carriage by him, on behalf of any registered curer, of pigs or carcases of pigs;
(b) enter into an arrangement with any person whereby that person undertakes to contract on specified terms with any registered curer, or any registered curer of a specified class, for the carriage on behalf of that curer of pigs or carcases of pigs;
(c) enter into an arrangement with any person whereby that person undertakes to insure any registered curer, or any registered curer of a specified class, against loss in respect of pigs by death, or damage during transit, or by disease; 

but, save in so far as a determination under the foregoing provisions of this Section applies—

(i) a curer shall not be bound to avail himself of anything done by the board under this Sub-section; and
(ii) if he does avail himself thereof with respect to any pigs or carcases, he shall repay to the board any sums which the board may become liable to pay to any other person in connection with the carriage of those pigs or carcases.

(12) References in this Section, in relation to pigs or carcases, to expenses of or incidental to the transport thereof, shall be deemed to include references to the cost of insurance and to any loss borne or sum payable by the registered curer in question in respect of death, damage, or loss of weight during transit or in respect of disease; and where a determination under this Section is so

made as to relate to any losses so borne, a registered curer who receives any payment, or is, under any contract, allowed any deduction from the price payable by him, in return for an undertaking by him to bear the whole or any part of such a loss in the case of pigs to which the determination applies, shall pay to the board a sum equal to that payment or, as the case may be, that deduction.—[Mr. spens.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

6.5 p.m.

Mr. Spens: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This new Clause is submitted as an attempted solution of one of the greatest outstanding difficulties that have been experienced in trying to make the marketing scheme work. It applies only, of course, to curers, and it is a suggestion analogous to that which the Minister has just moved in regard to the burden of allocation premiums. This is really to introduce a similar system as regards the burden, which varies very much between curer and curer, of transport and also of insurance. If in the equitable allocation of pigs an attempt is to be made to keep the factories at an economic throughput, it is essential that every obstacle in the way of that principle should if possible be removed. This new Clause will enable the Bacon Marketing Board under the direction of the Development Board to put forward a scheme for the control of the method of transport and for the costs of that transport, and to secure that it shall be pooled and borne equally among all the curers concerned. It becomes even of greater importance than it was in any previous contract period because, for the first time, we are not only casting the burden of carriage by road and rail on to the curing industry, but, under the Bill, the burden of carriage by sea from the islands has become a charge on the curers.
It is in order to try to achieve an equitable method of dealing with this transport burden that this Clause is put forward. It will enable the Bacon Marketing Board under the direction of the Development Board to issue a prescription which would give directions as to the method of transport to be used by any particular factory in order to obtain its pigs from the producers with whom that factory has entered into a contract; and not only pigs, but, in cases where pigs are slaughtered on the farm before being transported, the carcases of the pigs so


slaughtered. It will give power to the board to prescribe that where a curer is using his own transport, as a number of them do, he shall be credited in respect of every pig carried in it. That will go to his credit in the general scheme. It will also enable the board in cases where curers have an option under contracts with producers to use the producers' own lorries, and it will enable the board to take advantage of that method of contract. No one can bind the future Development Board indefinitely, but the intention of the machinery laid down is that whatever is the most convenient method of transport should be used, whether it be road or rail or otherwise. It is hoped that thereby there will be a substantial saving of overhead costs of transport to the industry because at present, while, of course, the large curers probably make their arrangements as cheaply as it can be done, there are many cases where lorries are not full and where small consignments are sent at the best price that can be obtained.
It is believed that under the new Clause it would be possible for the two boards to work out a scheme which really would save the industry as a whole a very large sum in transport. If that can be done, it will be a substantial step on the road to rationalisation, and it is rather from that point of view that I look at it. It means for the individual curer a certain restriction of freedom of action, but when it is remembered that the board which will primarily be operating this pooling arrangement will be a board of his own industry, the individual curer ought to be reasonably satisfied that his interest will be fully regarded in the scheme. The Clause also requires that any prescription shall be fully published' and opportunities given to individual curers to make their objections. It is only after the draft has been open to public notice and criticism for a time that it can be put into force. Every prescription will be in the first instance experimental, and for a short period it will be subject to variation if, as one must anticipate, flaws are found in it.
Although, in my view, the previous attempts under the very limited powers in the existing bacon and pig marketing schemes assisted substantially, no one would be bold enough to say that they did not also cause a great deal of criticism, and in some cases a certain

amount of hardship. Those were the only powers which were available to try and effect what is really an essential feature if we are to get this industry on to a really economic basis in the interests of the public. This Clause includes wide enough powers for the best use to be made of available transport, and it is hoped that my right hon. Friend will allow it to go into the Bill so as to put the two boards in a position to produce a scheme which, we believe, will be in the general interest of the industry, and, being in the interests of the industry, in the interests of the public and the consumer.

Sir Arnold Gridley: I beg to second the Motion.

6.14 p.m.

Mr. Price: I would like to see the Minister accept this new Clause. Like many other Clauses we have had to-day, it is very complicated and not easy to understand, but it seems to me that it embodies the right principle of pooling in transport. That is one of the things which was not in the last scheme, and its absence contributed very much to its failure. There was a good deal of opposition under the last scheme among producers who delivered pigs to factories by their own lorries and yet were charged railway rates. A pooling arrangement between road and rail is necessary in a scheme of this kind. The Milk Marketing Board has in hand an arrangement for regional pooling in conection with the delivery of milk. Under this Clause a similar arrangement can be come to in connection with this Bill. Further it seems to me that the responsibility for transport will now be shifted altogether to the curers, and no longer be a matter of concern to the producers, except in so far as a producer may have a lorry and he able to deliver to a factory and get credit for it in consequence. If the position is as the hon. and learned Member has explained it, I hope the Government will see their way to accept the Clause.

6.16 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: This new Clause has been commended to us by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) and supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley), and those two powerful names suggest that it is supported by both the Bacon Marketing


Board and the Pigs Marketing Board, and I have therefore to consider the matter only from the point of view of the general purposes of the Bill and the public interest.

Mr. Alexander: The public interest.

Mr. Morrison: The new Clause is an enabling Clause and not mandatory in its character. It provides what I conceive to be a very useful piece of machinery which can be used by the board in order to make further economies and carry rationalisation in the transport of pigs still further, and as the main purpose of the Bill is to provide a more rational distribution of pigs and to provide carrying facilities, I think the Clause is ancillary to that purpose and I therefore propose to accept it.

Mr. T. Williams: In the interests of economy, would it not be just as well, as this is only an enabling Clause, to content ourselves with sending a copy of it to the Pigs Marketing Board and the Bacon Marketing Board and leave.it at that? Why embody in the Bill this long perambulating Clause which nobody will ever understand and which is only to be used by those boards if they wish?

Mr. Morrison: Quite apart from the great literary quality of this new Clause it is necessary to insert it in the Statute because the Agricultural Marketing Acts do not give power to the Bacon Marketing Board to concern themselves with the transport of pigs. I am advised that legislation in this form is necessary if this transport is to be within the powers of the board.

6.18 p.m.

Mr. Alexander: I did not want to intervene if anybody else wanted to speak, wishing to see how far there was support in the House for the principle of this Clause. The Minister knows that in the past I have been very much opposed to the manner in which the powers granted in the pigs marketing scheme were used, and I am still without any conviction that it is a good thing in the interests of the industry as a whole that a factory which buys pigs from a farm down the same road as the factory is in, and then has the pigs driven up the road to the factory, must pay a contribution to a railway company or a road transport company for the transport of those pigs,

which the companies have never even seen. It is true that since I last put forward the suggestion a committee of investigation has reported in rather grandiloquent terms that the extraordinary process which I have described is in the public interest, and it is in the light of the Minister's reaction to this long and detailed Clause—not brought forward by the Minister, who is really responsible for this Bill, but by the Pigs and Bacon Marketing Boards—and to the decision of the committee of investigation that I have to make up my mind what to do.
I take it from the hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) that if they get these powers they will show themselves to be eminently reasonable people. The trouble is that the House is asked to give these powers and then to trust not merely to the good offices of the present members of the board but to their successors. The House may be prepared to go a long way in giving powers to people whom it knows, but it is a different thing to leave these powers to their successors, of whom it has no knowledge. I am sure the hon. and learned Member for Ashford will agree that it is with a little trepidation that one would agree to the inclusion of powers of this character. Further, I should like to press the hon. and learned Member to explain the real meaning of these words in Sub-section (II):
Save in so far as a determination under the foregoing provisions of this Section applies

(i) a curer shall not be bound to availhimself of anything done by the board under this Sub-section, and
(ii) if he does avail himself thereof with respect to any pigs or carcases, he shall repay to the board any sums which the board may become liable to pay to any other person in connection with the carriage of those pigs or carcases."

I should like to know what is the exact meaning of the words:
Save in so far as a determination under the foregoing provisions of this Section applies.
If the Bacon Marketing Board have arranged for a flat rate of transport and have an arrangement under which they contract with one insurance company alone, to insure all the pigs which are carried, and if I as a curer do not like those arrangements, am I free to say that I do not wish to avail myself of either the transport or insurance arrangement?

6.20 p.m.

Mr. Spens: The words have been put in for this reason, that there are bacon pigs and other pigs, and it may be that both for transport and insurance it would be possible to get cheaper rates for a contract which would cover both a producer's bacon pigs and non-bacon pigs. To the extent to which he is having bacon pigs transported or insured he comes under the determination and, quite frankly, has to do as he is told, but to the extent to which he is not bound by any determination then, of course, he is free to do what he thinks fit, and if he has availed himself of the arrangement he has to pay his proportion in respect of those other pigs. The right hon. Gentleman is harking back in his mind to the past. We depend upon a reasonable determination by the board to whom these enabling powers are given, and the right hon. Gentleman thinks that in the past some body has been unreasonable and is frightened that in future a similar body will be unreasonable. He is only expressing the views which I have expressed on many occasions in Committee, that the curing industry and, indeed, the producers are by this Bill putting themselves under the powers of a new Development Board whose future attitude we do not know, but the whole success of the scheme depends upon that body acting in a reasonable manner, and if I may venture to say so there is no more ground for suggesting that the Development Board will act unreasonably in respect of this Clause than in respect of all the hundred and one other matters over which they have control. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to agree to the Clause, remembering that the last words will always be with the Development Board.

6.27 p.m.

Mr. Alexander: I should like to have permission to reply, because I wanted to know, before coming to a decision on the Clause, what was the view of the Mover. Having received his kind explanation I feel more than ever dead against the Clause. The enabling powers are such that there is no real escape for reasonable people under the powers which I have quoted in Sub-section (11) and the further powers in Sub-section (7), where it says:

If any registered curer causes any pig to be transported or insured in contravention of any determination in force under this Section 
then all sorts of penalties will fall upon him. Take the case of a body like the co-operative organisation with which, as is well known, I am associated, which runs not only its transport but also its own insurance—has a very important insurance business. If it is said that we must conform to a block arrangement of insurance ordered by a joint decision of the Pigs and Bacon Marketing Boards, actually handing over our insurance to some other company, then we fundamentally object. In the same way we object if we are told that we must conform to some other transport arrangements when normally we should carry the pigs by our own vehicles. No such enabling terms ought to be put into the Bill. I do not think the Minister ought to have been so ready to accept this Clause without a further examination of the problem from that angle. The point in relation to insurance is one which he particularly ought to observe. In the case of appeal to the committee of investigation in regard to insurance, it was not found to be in the public interest that the Pigs Marketing Board should grant a monopoly of insurance of pigs to one company of its own nomination.

Mr. Spans: There is nothing in the proposed new Clause in regard to granting a monopoly, and there is no intention of monopoly.

Mr. Alexander: The hon. and learned Gentleman says that there is no intention. That was what made me offer my earlier remarks to him, and while I might be willing to trust a member of the marketing board with whom I have worked, and who would say that that was not going to be done, and while that would be all right, I must point out that we are dealing here not with correspondence between certain gentlemen but with the determination of the Statute and the question, What is the power? If that is the position under paragraph (i), I have a fundamental objection to Sub-section (7) because you could make what determination you liked and enforce it. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Liddall) has considered the matter from that point of view. He has often intervened in the discussions on this Bill in the interests of the small curer, and it will be serious to him if this proposal


goes through in this way. I make no criticism of the present members of the board, because I believe that I can trust them to meet the interests for which I speak fairly and squarely and to see that we get a reasonable deal. That is not the point, which is that this is to be a permanent part of the Statute, and unless we get an absolute guarantee I fundamentally object. I think that the Minister ought not to accept this proposed new Clause unless we get such guarantees as those for which I am asking.

6.32 p.m.

Mr. E. J. Williams: Are we not introducing by means of this Clause a principle to which Members of this House have objected from time to time? In the nature of things, boards have to administer certain industries, but we have complained occasionally that powers are handed to persons who have no legislative authority at all to do certain things which this House cannot question. We had an instance to-day of the use of the powers of the Executive in relation to the Privileges of this House, and here we have certain powers being given to persons who cannot be called to account. I object to the powers mentioned in this Clause being handed to an authority which cannot be called before Parliament to answer for its conduct, and therefore I object to the Clause being incorporated in the Bill. Could we have a reply from the Minister on this matter? I am not complaining about the personnel of the board but of a matter of vital principle, and I should like to have a further explanation from the Minister. I support my right hon. Friend who spoke just now, and who knows the personnel of the present board quite well. If a society like the Co-operative Wholesale Society does its own insurance work through the I.C.S., and if insurance should be taken out of their hands and put into the hands of certain nominated people whom the board have in mind, the interests of the co-operative movement generally would be prejudiced. From that aspect I support my right hon. Friend.

6.35 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The mixed views which have been expressed upon this proposed new Clause illustrate the great difficulty which one has in trying to secure a

desirable thing like an economical system of pooling transport charges. It is desirable in principle, although some particular interest may fear that they will be ridden over roughshod, and the people who are apprehensive would rather object to the benefits of combination than incur the dangers which they fear. The view I take is that the Bill contains provisions which make very remote the danger of injudicious or unfair action under this enabling Clause. I pass over the point about the Pigs Board coming into conflict with interests who can charge them with unfairness, and point out that the Bacon Board are not in the position of a producers' board under the agricultural marketing scheme pure and simple, because they are subject to the Development Board, whose consent must be obtained for any scheme for dealing with transport and insurance.

Mr. Alexander: If the right hon. Gentleman would guarantee us in advance by giving us a majority of the independent members on that board, I would accept his assurance.

Mr. Morrison: I cannot do that. The Development Board would have great difficulty in carrying out its functions fairly if there were a majority upon it of the organisations to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred. There are provisions in the Bill whereby a committee of investigation can look at once into any complaint of unfairness by the board. As to giving the board a blank cheque, we are doing nothing of the kind. There is the check of the committee of investigation. Although the possibility of injustice and unfairness is very remote, it has been suggested that there should be some further safeguards which the right hon. Gentleman thinks are desirable, to prevent anything of that kind arising. I would advise that the best course to adopt in the circumstances, as the object is undoubtedly desirable, is to accept the new Clause and to let me consider any representations that are made in regard to it, in order to prevent the injustice or unfairness suggested by the right hon. Gentleman.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 197; Noes, 128.

Division No. 256.]
AYES.
[4.20 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Birchall, Sir J. D.
Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Boothby, R. J. G.
Chorlton, A. E. L.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Bossom, A. C.
Christie, J. A.


Albery, Sir Irving
Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Bracken, B.
Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Brass, Sir W.
Clarry, Sir Reginald


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)


Apsley, Lord
Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Colville, Rt. Hon. John


Aske, Sir R. W.
Bull, B. B.
Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)


Assheton, R.
Bullock, Capt. M.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Burton, Col. H. W.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)


Atholl, Duchess of
Butler, R. A.
Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Campbell, Sir E. T.
Cranborne, Viscount


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Cortland, J. R. H.
Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page


Baxter, A. Beverley
Carver, Major W. H.
Crooke, Sir J. Smedley


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Cary, R. A.
Cross, R. H.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)
Crossley, A. C.


Beechman, N. A.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Crowder, J. F. E.


Beit, Sir A. L.
Channon, H.
Cruddas, Col. B.


Bernays, R. H.
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Culverwell, C. T.




Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Dawson, Sir P.
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


De Chair, S. S.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Rowlands, G.


De la Bère, R.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Leach, Sir J. W.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Denville, Alfred
Lees-Jones, J.
Russell, Sir Alexander


Doland, G. F.
Leigh, Sir J.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Donner, P. W.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Salmon, Sir I.


Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Dower, Major A. V. G.
Levy, T.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Liddall, W. S.
Sandys, E. D.


Duggan, H. J.
Lipson, D. L.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.


Duncan, J. A. L.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Scott, Lord William


Dunglass, Lord
Loftus, P. C.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Waventree)


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Edge, Sir W.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Ellis, Sir G.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.


Elliston, Capt. G. S.
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Elmley, Viscount
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
McKie, J. H.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Maclay, Hon. J. P.
Smithers, Sir W.


Errington, E.
Macnamara, Major J. R. L.
Somerset, T.


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Macquisten, F. A.
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald


Everard, W. L.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Findlay, Sir E.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Markham, S. F.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'I'd)


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Marsden, Commander A.
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Gluckstein, L. H.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Mills, Sir F. (Layton, E.)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Gridley, Sir A. B
Mitcheson, Sir G. G.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Moreing, A. C.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Grimston, R. V.
Morgan, R. H.
Tate, Mavis C.


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Thomas, J. P. L.


Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.


Hambro, A. V.
Morrison, Rt. Hon W. S. (Cirencester)
Titchfield, Marquess of


Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Harbord, A.
Munro, P.
Turton, R. H.


Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Nall, Sir J.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Patrick, C. M.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Hepworth, J.
Petherick, M.
Warrender, Sir V.


Higgs, W. F.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Holmes, J. S.
Pilkington, R.
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Hopkinson, A.
Porritt, R. W.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Procter, Major H. A.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Purbrick, R.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Radford, E. A.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Hulbert, N. J.
Ramsbotham, H.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Hume, Sir G. H.
Ramsden, Sir E.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Hunloke, H. P.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Hunter, T.
Rayner, Major R. H.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Hurd, Sir P. A.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)



James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)
Captain Dugdale and Major


Keeling, E. H.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Herbert.


Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)





NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Collindridge, F.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Cove, W. G.
Grenfell, D. R.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'Isbr.)
Dagger, G.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)


Anderson. F. (Whitehaven)
Dalton, H.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)


Banfield, J. W.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)


Barnes, A. J.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)


Batey, J.
Day, H.
Harris, Sir P. A.


Bellenger, F. J.
Debbie, W.
Heyday, A.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)


Benson, G.
Ede, J. C.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)


Broad, F. A.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)


Bromfield, W.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)


Burke, W. A.
Gallecher, W.
Holdsworth, H.


Cassells, T.
Gardner, B. W.
Hopkin, D.


Charleton, H. C.
Garro Jones, G. M.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)


Cluse, W. S.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
John, W.


Cocks, F. S.
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.







Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Sorensen, R. W.


Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Muff, G.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Jones, J. J. (Silvertown)
Owen, Major G.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Paling, W.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpoth)


Kelly, W. T.
Parker, J.
Thorne, W.


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Parkinson, J. A.
Tinker, J. J.


Kirby, B. V.
Pearson, A.
Tomlinson, G.


Kirkwood, D.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Viant, S. P.


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Price, M. P.
Walkden, A. G.


Lawson, J. J.
Pritt, D. N.
Walker, J.


Leach, W.
Quibell, D. J. K.
Watkins, F. C.


Leslie, J. R.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Watson, W. McL.


Logan, D. G.
Ridley, G.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Ritson, J.
Welsh, J. C.


McEntee, V. La T.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom)
Westwood, J.


McGhee, H. G.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
White, H. Graham


McGovern, J.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


MacLaren, A.
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)
Wilkinson, Ellen


Maclean, N.
Sanders, W. S.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Sexton, T. M.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Mander, G. le M.
Silkin, L.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Marshall, F.
Simpson, F. B.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Mathers, G.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Maxien, J.
Smith, E. (Stoke)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Messer, F.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees. (K'ly)



Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Smith, T. (Normanton)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Groves and Mr. Adamson.


Question put, and agreed to.

Division No. 257.]
AYES.
[6.39 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Errington, E.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Munro, P.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.


Albery, Sir Irving
Findlay, Sir E.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Owen, Major G.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Peaks, O.


Apsley, Lord
Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)
Peters, Dr. S. J.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Gledhill, G.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Porritt, R. W.


Atholl, Duchess of
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Procter, Major H. A.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Grimston, R. V.
Radford, E. A.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Balniel, Lord
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Ramsbotham, H.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Hambro, A. V.
Ramsden, Sir E.


Belt, Sir A. L.
Harbord, A.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Bernays, R. H.
Harvey, Sir G.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Bracken, B.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Remer, J. R.


Brass, Sir W.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Hepworth, J.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Brown, Col D. C. (Hexham)
Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Higgs, W. F.
Rowlands, G.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Bull, B. B.
Holdsworth, H.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Burton, Col. H. W.
Holmes, J. S.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Hopkinson, A.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Cartland, J. R H.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Salmon, Sir I.


Cary, R. A.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Samuel, M. R. A.


Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Hunter, T.
Scott, Lord William


Channon, H.
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Selley, H. R.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Joel, D. J. B.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Christie, J. A.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Keeling, E. H.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st)


Clarke, Frank (Dartford)
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Somerset, T.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Leech, Sir J. W.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Lees-Jones, J.
Spens, W. P.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'ge)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Levy, T.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Cross, R. H.
Liddall, W. S.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Crossley, A. C.
Lipson, D. L.
Tate, Mavls C.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Little, Sir E. Graham-
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Cruddas, Col. B.
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.


Culverwell, C. T.
Loftus, P. C.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Mebane, W. (Huddersfield)
Turton, R. H.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


De la Bère, R.
MacDonald, Sir Murdech (Inverness)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
McKie, J. H.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Doland, G. F.
Maclay, Hon. J. P.
Warrender, Sir V.


Donner, P. W.
Macquisten, F. A.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Drewe, C.
Markham, S. F.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Dunsen, J. A. L.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Dunglass, Lord
Mills, Sir F. (Layton, E.)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Eastwood, J. F.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Mitcheson, Sir G. G.



Ellis, Sir G.
Moreing, A. C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Morgan, R. H.
Major Herbert and Major Harvie


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Watt.




NOES


Adams, D. (Consett)
Buchanan, G.
Dobbie, W.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Burke, W. A.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)


Adamson, W. M.
Charleton, H. C.
Ede, J. C.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Chater, D.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Cluse, W. S.
Foot, D. M.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Frankel, D.


Banfield, J. W.
Cocks, F. S.
Gallacher, W.


Barnes, A. J.
Collindridge, F.
Gardner, B. W.


Bellenger, F. J.
Cove, W. G.
Garro Jones, G. M.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W
Daggar, G.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)


Benson, G.
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)


Broad, F. A.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A


Bromfield, W.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Grenfell, D R.







Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
MacLaren, A.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Maclean, N.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Mander, G. le M.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Marshall, F.
Sorensen, R. W.


Harris, Sir P. A.
Maxton, J.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Hayday, A.
Messer, F.
Stokes, R. R.


Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Milner, Major J.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Montague, F.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Thorne, W.


Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Tinker, J. J.


Hopkin, D.
Muff, G.
Viant, S. P.


Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Naylor, T. E.
Walker, J.


Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Oliver, G. H.
Watkins, F. C.


John, W.
Paling, W.
Watson, W. McL.


Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Parker, J.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Parkinson, J. A.
Welsh, J. C.


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Pearson, A.
Westwood, J.


Kelly, W. T.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
White, H. Graham


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Quibell, D. J. K.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Kirby, B. V.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Wilkinson, Ellen


Kirkwood, D.
Ridley, G.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Riley, B.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Leach, W.
Ritson, J.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Leonard, W.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Leslie, J. R.
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Logan, D. G.
Sanders, W. S.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Lunn, W.
Sexton, T. M.



Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Silkin, L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


McEntee, V. La T.
Silverman, S. S.
Mr. Groves and Mr. Mathers.


McGhee, H. G.
Simpson, F. B.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Arbitration safeguard.)

(1) Any dispute between the Development Board or a Marketing Board and any person aggrieved by an act or omission of the board being any of the following persons, namely, any registered producer of pigs, any registered curer, any holder of or applicant for a producer's licence, or any person producing or desirous of producing bacon in Great Britain, as to whether such act or omission is in breach of the board's powers or duties under this Act or under any direction or determination thereunder, or under the Pigs Marketing Scheme, 1933, or the Bacon Marketing Scheme, 1933, and any dispute between any of the said boards and any such person as aforesaid as to the construction, meaning, or effect of any provision of this Act or of any such direction or determination or of the said schemes, shall be decided by arbitration and the arbitrator may make such an order in the matter as he thinks just.

(2) Where any such dispute relates to an act or omission of a Marketing Board and the Marketing Board claims that the act or omission was done or omitted in accordance with directions given by the Development Board, the Marketing Board may give notice in writing to that effect to the Development Board and to the person aggrieved, and the Development Board shall then be entitled to be a party to the arbitration, and the arbitrator may, if he decides to make an order in favour of the person aggrieved, decide whether the Development Board or the Marketing Board is responsible for the act or omission complained of, and make such an order in the matter as he thinks just.

(3) No person shall be deemed to be aggrieved for the purposes of this Section where the act or omission complained of is done or omitted in exercise by the board of

a discretionary power vested in the board whether by or under this Act, or under either of the said schemes or otherwise.

(4) This Section shall have effect in lieu of paragraph 67 of the Pigs Marketing Scheme, 1933, and paragraph 60 of the Bacon Marketing Scheme, 1933, and accordingly those paragraphs shall cease to have effect.—[Sir A. Gridley.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

6.49 p.m.

Sir A. Gridley: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I think there is general agreement that a provision of this kind is essential in the Bill, and I am glad to say that the Clause has the approval, not only of those who represent bacon curers, but also of the Pigs Marketing Board and, I think, of the National Farmers' Union as well; and I hope to hear in due course that it has also the approval of the Minister himself. I need not take up much time in commenting on the Clause. Sub-section (1) deals with disputes which may arise between any of the boards, or between persons and any of the boards, and provides for arbitration in such circumstances. Sub-section (2) deals with the question which board is at fault, and provides that the arbitrator shall make an order accordingly. The purpose of Subsection (3) is to direct the arbitrator. There have been cases in the past in which marketing disputes have been referred to arbitration, and the arbitrator, having heard the evidence of both sides, has come to the conclusion that such-and-


such a decision on his part is the right one looked at from the point of view of his own judgment and common sense, but has ignored the Acts by which his award should have been guided. The Sub-section directs the arbitrator's attention to the fact that he must put on one side what may be his own personal views, and must have regard to the provisions of the Act dealing with grievances and the discretionary power vested in one board or the other.

Sir Joseph Lamb: I beg to second the Motion.

6.52 p.m.

Mr. Liddall: The proposed new Clause dealing with arbitration which stood in the names of myself and two other Members was not called, but I hope the Minister will accept this Clause, because, so far as I can see, there does not appear to be in the Bill any general provision for a right of arbitration, although the right of arbitration was provided for in the Bacon Marketing Scheme. In certain circumstances the Bacon Marketing Scheme might cease to function, and certain of its powers would then, I understand, be taken over by the Development Board. I am sure the House will agree that it is reasonable to suggest that, in such an event, registered curers should still have the right to arbitration. Apart from that, it is not difficult to conceive that there may in the future be differences of opinion between registered curers or other persons and the Development Board. I do not propose to weary the House with the various points on which differences may arise between the curers and the board, but, if the Minister is going to suggest that there is not likely to be any difference of opinion, and that, therefore, the right to arbitration would not be exercised, the obvious answer is that in that case there does not seem to be any reason why the right to arbitration should not be granted. After all, it is difficult for any of us here to foresee exactly what is going to happen when the Bill comes into operation. For that reason I support the Clause, and hope that 'the Minister will accept it.

6.55 P.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I am sorry to be a discordant voice in such a chorus of agreement as to the virtues of the proposed new Clause. My disagreement does not arise from any dislike of arbitration,

or from any desire to prevent anyone who has a grievance from securing a speedy and full airing and ventilation of that grievance. I take it that the real reason why this Clause has been moved is that it appeared in somewhat similar terms in the Agricultural Marketing Acts, and has been a feature of the schemes under those Acts. But I would point out that we have adopted in the present Measure a rather more selective process for dealing with this question of arbitration. When the Agricultural Marketing Acts were passed, the future of the schemes under them was dark, and a general provision for arbitration seemed to be the proper method of forestalling any difficulty. But in this Bill we have made arbitration specifically a recourse for anyone aggrieved by a large number of things in the Bill. Indeed, nearly every case of importance where disputes may arise between curers and the boards, or between other persons and the boards, is covered by its particular arbitration Clause.
In Clause 12, the question whether producers' licences have been validly revoked has been made the subject of arbitration, and in Clause 14 the question whether compensation should be paid to people in respect of rationalisation, and, if so, how much, is made referable to arbitration. The question whether a producer's licence can properly be revoked under a rationalisation scheme is also made the subject of arbitration. Under Clause 29, if there is any question of the action of a marketing board being in contravention of an instruction of the Development Board, and damages arising therefrom, it is made subject to arbitration. What we have done is to pick out every case as we went along where arbitration seemed to be a proper course, and to attach specific references to arbitration in each case.
If, on the top of that detailed series of references to arbitration, we were to put in a general Clause of this character, the House can easily see what the result might be. So far from its being a protection against arbitrary action by the board, it would, in my view, have the effect of destroying one very powerful safeguard against arbitrary and unjust action, and that is speedy reference to the courts of justice. At the present time, if either the Development Board or a marketing board were to go outside the powers conferred upon it by the Statute, an injunction could be speedily sought to restrain it


from its illegal action; but if all matters were to be referred to arbitration, it might involve a very long hearing, and much damage might be done before the courts were invoked. Again, take the ordinary debt collecting powers of the courts. The courts can not only decide whether debts are due to citizens, but can also collect those debts.
At the present time, supposing that a board has a debt against one of its members, it can issue a summons in the county court, and, if the man comes and says that the debt is not due because the facts are not as stated, the whole matter can be determined in the county court; a determination can be made upon the facts there and then, and it can be decided whether or not something is due. The whole matter is settled, both as to facts and as to law, in one operation. Now it is proposed that, instead of that, every dispute should be a matter of arbitration, and in that case we should have a prolonged procedure, where an arbitrator would first of all find the facts, and then make a pronouncement on the law. That would be very much more cumbersome and expensive and less satisfactory than the procedure of the ordinary courts of justice in this country. Arbitration is very often an admirable method of settling differences on questions of fact, and we have accepted it in every case; but the courts of justice have their own functions, and I should not like to see a general provision of this character ousting the law courts from their proper function of seeing that the bodies set up under the Statute act within the powers which Parliament has conferred upon them.
It is often a mistake to think that questions of a legal character can be more speedily and cheaply disposed of by arbitration than by a straight reference to the courts of law, because it is always within the powers of the arbitrator, or indeed of any of the parties appearing before him, if they wish for a settlement of the legal issue arising in the arbitration, to get the arbitrator to state a case for the decision of the High Court, and sometimes I have known cases when resort to an arbitrator has proved a more dilatory proceeding because in the end the matter has had to be referred to the courts. To attempt to cover every conceivable case of possible grievance against the board by reference to arbitration would be to oust the courts

from a proper consideration of legal matters, and would not be in the public interest.

7.2 p.m.

Mr. Turton: I very much regret that the Minister has taken this line on this new Clause. After all, we have had a certain experience of the old marketing schemes, and the Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley) has endeavoured to enshrine the result of that experience in this new Clause. It was with great regret that many of us saw in the Fifth Schedule that the arbitration system which has been tried and proved most satisfactory was to be discarded. The Minister says that Clause 45 covers all the cases of possible dispute. I would like to remind him of one very important gap in his framework. The disputes about quotas of factories under Clause 26 are not covered at all by Clause 45. That is a matter of very considerable importance. I remember the consternation that was felt about two years ago when a factory that had a licence for 150,000 pigs given it by the Development Board had that licence cut down to 50,000.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The hon. Member is not now considering the Clause which we are discussing, because Sub-section (3) says:
No person shall he deemed to be aggrieved for the purposes of this Section where the act or omission complained of is done or omitted in exercise by the board of a dicretionary power vested in the board…
In other words, the framers of this Amendment have seen that it is impossible to refer to arbitration the powers of a discretionary character vested in the board: the quota of a factory would be such a discretionary power, and in that case even if this new Clause were accepted there would be no reference to arbitration.

Mr. Turton: I do not always see eye to eye with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stockport, but with regard to the conditions which this new Clause attempts to remedy I agree that some amendment is needed. Under the old bacon marketing scheme we could go to arbitration, and in fact we did set arbitration in motion although, if I remember the history of those days, we managed to get by threatening arbitration certain accommodation from the Bacon Marketing


Board which made that arbitration un-necessary. But I do really suggest to the Minister that it is not right to alter the system of arbitration that has worked fairly well for a large number of years; and although I listened to what he said in justification of the abolition of the system of arbitration under the bacon marketing scheme I do not think he made out his case. I hope that if we do not have this new Clause in the form in which it is moved by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stockport, perhaps in another place some greater safeguard may be given to all people in the pig industry, both producers and curers, by some better system of arbitration.

7.5 P.m.

Mr. Alexander: I think the Minister has put up a fairly well reasoned legal case against the wide terms of this new Clause. The object of the scheme would be very seriously hampered and interfered with by recourse to injunction methods as a result of arbitration, and I am not inclined myself to press, as the hon. Gentleman has, quite rightly from his point of view, for the whole of this Amendment. However, I should feel very much happier myself if I could get an assurance in open House to-night from the Minister that if we do not get the full provisions of this arbitration Clause at least we might in such a very controversial matter get some arbitration provision, or some similar method of negotiating difficulties that may arise, under the new and almost unconsidered Clause introduced by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) and adopted by the House. If we could get an assurance of that kind it might be helpful to the people for whom I am speaking on this matter.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: As I said earlier, we have taken pains throughout the Bill to add a reference to arbitration in every case where we thought it was fair, and if any hon. Member in any part of the House feels that there is some provision in the Bill which should have an arbitration Clause attached to it, we would gladly consider an Amendment to meet that point of view. With regard to the specific matter which the right hon. Gentleman has raised, touching the last new Clause, "Provisions as to transport of pigs on behalf of the curers," I will gladly consider, if there is substance in what he

says, whether it can be met by the introduction of an Amendment in another place.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) has several Amendments on the Paper. Do they all hang together? To the proposal to leave out "four" there are two alternatives.

CLAUSE 1.—(Establishment of new Bacon Development Board.)

7.7 P.m.

Mr. T. Williams: I beg to move, in page I, line 17, to leave out "five," and to insert "seven."
The Amendments standing in my name ought to be taken together, and I desire to couple the Amendment at the bottom of page 1849 with the first and second Amendments on page 1850. The object of this series of Amendments will be understood at once when I explain that we desire to change the constitution of the Bacon Development Board so that the independent members shall be a majority of the members of that board. We regard this Amendment as being of paramount importance, and unless the independent members do constitute a majority we feel that not only shall we not achieve the primary object and purpose of the Measure, but the national and consumer interests may conceivably be let down. This Bacon Development Board should not only represent the State and the industry but also the consumer. It has comprehensive powers and can always make or mar the interests concerned in carrying out the functions conceded to them in this Measure. The Development Board will be able to rationalise bacon factories, grant curers' licences, revoke those licences, direct the Bacon Marketing Board or the Pigs Marketing Board, supersede either or both, and carry out the functions of either or both, and it seems to me to be of paramount importance that the independent members of such a body should be a majority of that board. It is my considered view, having examined the Bill carefully in the light of all our known experience since the first marketing board came into existence, that while the industry never did, and presumably never will, care for control from outside, the time has arrived because of our present day experience when the majority of such a body as this should represent


the State through the agency of independent members.
What has happened during the past few years? We have had a Bacon Development Board since September, 1935. Their powers were limited to licensing factories and to encouraging research and that kind of thing. There has been no rationalisation, although I believe that if the Pigs Marketing Board and the Bacon Marketing Board had desired so to do they could have increased the powers granted to the Development Board. The only report we have on the development scheme was issued in April, 1938, and in that report we are told that the principal powers of the board relate to licensing of bacon factories. Then it goes on to say:
They may also exercise such marketing functions as may be delegated to them by a constituent marketing board, but at the time of this Report no functions of the marketing board have been delegated to the Development Board.
That is to say, although a third body was set up, with three independent members appointed by the Minister of Agriculture, the Pigs Marketing Board and the Bacon Marketing Board failed to increase the functions conceded to the Development Board; in other words, the Bacon Marketing Board and the Pigs Marketing Board have been really good stonewallers, and to the extent that they have stonewalled they stonewalled themselves out of existence last year, and they had to come to Parliament, or to the Minister, to invite the Minister to do something that the industry itself failed to do when they had the power. Hence the production of this Bill.
This Measure sets out not only to enable the industry, with iindependent members, to reorganise itself to place the industry on a fairly sound economic basis, but it goes beyond the Act of 1931, the original Marketing Act, in so far as it concedes to the industry a guaranteed financial subsidy. It also goes beyond the Act of 1931 in so far as it concedes to the Board of Trade the power to continue to restrict the imports of bacon for the purpose of maintaining the price at what the Minister would regard as an economic price. Therefore for right hon. or hon. Members to argue that the Labour Government of 1931 were originally responsible for the Marketing

Act, out of which marketing schemes have emerged, and that that Act visualised producer control, is not really to tell the full story in 1938. Indeed in 1931 the object was to give the industry an opportunity to organise itself through the agency of marketing schemes, eliminating unnecessary men, bringing the producer and the curer nearer together, so that the producer might get a fairer share of the ultimate price without imposing a further burden upon the consumer.
1938 has brought us to this pitch where, except in one case, the producer has found himself not only not receiving more for the commodities he produces, but in two or three cases actually receiving less, while the consumer in those cases is having to pay more. Therefore I do not think it is unfair to say that they have developed not into the marketing schemes that Parliament originally desired to see, but into price-fixing organisations which, I make bold to say, is not serving the industry well, because any marketing scheme that really is successful ought to be eliminating intermediate waste and guaranteeing to the producer a better price than he had hitherto. That has not been the case; and the Food Council, in their report for 1936, told us:
In our opinion, however, consumers have legitimate cause for complaint in so far as the Marketing Schemes, which were intended to give primary producers the power to organise and co-ordinate the sale of their produce, confer in addition powers of intervention in the subsequent stages of treatment and distribution, which are not the province of producers and of which they cannot be expected to have expert knowledge.
They go on to say:
In bacon we see producers and curers pressing for the maintenance of prices to the consumer by a strict regulation of imports, although no returns are available as to the cost of curing and there is consequently no reliable evidence as to the proportion of the consumer's payment which ought to reach the producer.
Instead of the Pigs Marketing Board and the Bacon Marketing Board setting about their work to rationalise the bacon factories, providing themselves with a secondary service, comparable, shall I say, with the one they have in Denmark, they have left the most fundamental weakness within the industry entirely alone. We have it on record from the reorganisation commission that studied the question of pigs and bacon products that


a factory with a throughput capacity of 684 pigs per week cost an average of 9s. 2d. per cwt., while a factory with a throughput capacity of 2,500 per week cost only 5s. 1d. per cwt.—a margin of 4s. 1d. per cwt. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) has been worrying this afternoon about twopences, threepences, and sixpences. There is a possibility of saving 4s. There is no system perfectly organised, and the throughput for each factory is not what it ought to be.
We fear that unless the majority of the members of this Bacon Development Board are independent members, we are not going to get that rationalisation scheme that alone will help the farmers and pig producers in this country. I would suggest to the hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb), the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton, and the hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens), if he were here, that they are doing an ill turn to their own industry when they tell the country, through this House, that they are unwilling to accept outside members, but only outside advice, when they are so ready to accept Parliamentary assistance and subsidies. If they come to the House for machinery to help them and make their industry more economical, and if they ask for Treasury grants and for power to restrict imports, in order to maintain the price level and impose upon consumers prices they would otherwise not be called upon to pay, it does not seem to me unfair for Parliament to ask that industry to provide it with three members from the Pigs Marketing Board, with all their experince, and three from the Bacon Marketing Board, with all their experience, to work in conjunction with seven independent members appointed by the Minister, who shall exercise the power to rationalise this industry into a really efficient one. That is the object of the series of Amendments we have on the Order Paper.
Instead of the independent members being five, we think they should be seven; instead of the members of the Pigs Marketing Board and the Bacon Marketing Board being four each, constituting a majority of the whole, we think they ought to be three. We want the advice and experience of those members of the Pigs and Bacon Marketing Boards, but we do not want them to have control, since we cannot expect them to rationalise

themselves out of existence. This Bill will succeed or fail to the extent that the bacon development scheme can initiate and carry through a really successful rationalisation. All our factories are uneconomical at the moment. Therefore, the question of success or failure depends upon the Development Board's attitude towards rationalisation. Members representing agriculture itself ought to agree with the submission that Parliament has helped them to help themselves for a period of years, and that they have failed because of interests that were involved. It is the right and proper thing, when Parliament is willing to grant them a subsidy and give the Board of Trade powers to restrict imports, for them to join hands with the independent members in order to make the scheme a success.
There can be no small vested interest in the country nearly so important as the agricultural interest as a whole. I hope the hon. Member for Stone, the hon. and learned Member for Ashford, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton and other hon. Members will see the wisdom, in the interest of the industry itself, of accepting this series of Amendments, giving the independent members a majority of one and adding to them the experience of the members of the marketing boards. Let us get that rationalisation, and do something really lasting for the industry.

7.23 p.m.

Mr. Price: I beg to second the Amendment.
We have already seen this afternoon, in connection with the new Clause relating to transport, that many of the difficulties which my hon. Friend sees might arise under that Clause would be avoided if we had on the Development Board a majority of independent members. It would create a greater feeling of confidence among the general and consuming public, among all those sections of the community which alone can make a Measure like this a success. A rationalisation and marketing reorganisation scheme can be made a success only if the majority of members upon the ultimate controlling body are independent and not connected with any of the special interests which are being dealt with.
It seems to me that there is a general tendency—and the Government do not


seem to be able to help themselves about it—towards setting up independent commissions which control marketing schemes. We had one last year in the Livestock Industry Act. There the provisions of the Agricultural Marketing Act were not put into effect. The Government set up a Livestock Commission of independent members, which is the controlling body in the operation of that Act. We see the tendency in other directions. The Milk Reorganisation Commission, which reported over a year ago, advised the setting up of a commission, which should be the final arbitrating authority to decide upon milk prices and conditions generally in the industry—that is to say, overriding the marketing board and the distributors' organisation. Everything points in the direction of setting up this kind of independent commission, nominated by the Ministry of Agriculture and by other Government Departments. I maintain that that alone will really bring about that confidence among the general and consuming body which will make a success of the marketing schemes.

7.27 p.m.

Mr. Ramsbotham: This is not the first time we have heard the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) on this topic. I enjoyed hearing him put, in a fresher way, arguments which we had already heard at some length upstairs on exactly the same topic. But I think he would agree that the best form of legislation must always be that which secures the assent—and not only the assent, but the cordial co-operation—of those affected by the legislation. That particularly applies to legislation dealing with large and comprehensive industries, as in this case, when we are dealing with a substantial portion of the agricultural industry on the one hand and with an industry, on the other hand, like the bacon curing industry. That principle of legislation is really the principle underlying the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, for which the hon. Gentleman and his friends was responsible. It was that principle which caused the comparatively smooth passage of that Act, because the co-operation of the interests affected could be counted upon. I am afraid the hon. Member's speech showed a considerable back-sliding from the principles which he supported some years ago. The effect of this proposal can only be that an

independent majority would be able to regiment, control, dragoon, the two great sections of the industry which, under this Measure, we are persuading to work together. We all know there have been differences in the past—

Mr. T. Williams: How does the hon. Member square the statement that we want to regiment and dragoon the industry with his own proposal that there shall be eight members representing the industry against five independent members? Are we to take it that the eight members representing the boards will regiment and dragoon the five independent members?

Mr. Ramsbotham: The five independent members are not themselves connected with or responsible for 'the running of those industries. They are there in an independent capacity. The general point I want to make is that if we are to get this industry functioning properly, if we are to get the maximum amount of good will from the industries affected, how could that be successfully accomplished if we were to have a majority in numbers of independent members for the purpose of compelling either section or both to do what the independent section thought was the correct thing to do? To vitiate the Bill in that form would be to make no progress at all, and for that very reason I do not advise the Committee to accept the proposal made by the hon. Member opposite. He supported his argument by the proposition that, where a financial subsidy is payable to the industry or group of industries, the body in charge of that subsidy should be an independent body.

Mr. T. Williams: I was trying to emphasise—and probably it was my lack of clarity which was responsible for the misunderstanding of the hon. Gentleman—that the Act of 1931 had no conception of financial subsidies or restrictions, and that, therefore, we have moved on from 1931, so that in 1938 we not only provide machinery but give financial subsidies and allow restrictions because producer control so- far has failed to do the job.

Mr. Ramsbotham: I must have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman. I was proposing to point out in this particular case that the Development Board would derive its revenues not from public funds but from its own resources. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of


Dean (Mr. Price) quoted the analogy of the Livestock Industry Act where there was an independent Commission. In that case there was no organisation in existence and it was necessary to start de novo without any foundation. Here we have the foundation of the Pigs Marketing Board and the Bacon Marketing Board, and in building upon that foundation it would be very unwise, in view of the fact that we have these two boards, with friendly relations existing between them, to produce a situation in which they would be governed by an independent body of the kind mentioned, which unquestionably would be found difficult to operate. For that reason I cannot accept the Amendment.

7.33 P.m.

Mr. Muff: The Minister of Pensions has laid down the axiom that this board shall be constituted practically in order to do as they like. There has been another principle laid down in past years by Parliament that where public money is given in any form whatever, either by subsidy or in any other way, there should be public control. I support the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) in order that Parliament shall stand up for its age-long principle, that where money is given from public funds, either by subsidy or in any other way, there should be a majority in order to see that the money is properly directed and administered, and also that the work for which the money is voted shall be done in a rational manner. The Minister of Pensions states that if these various interests—and I emphasise the word "interests"—have not the right to do as they like, they will take their bat home and will not play. That does not speak well for the future of the Bill when it becomes an Act of Parliament.
I believe that the words uttered a few moments ago by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Liddall), that this House does not know what is going to happen when the Bill is passed, are perfectly true, and that the Bill is really a leap in the dark. I would remind the Minister of Pensions that only last week the Grocers' Association at their meeting at Llandudno were also somewhat sceptical that the Bill and this particular board will not justify their existence, or, in plain English, we are not going to have -the bacon. The Minister of Agriculture

and the Minister of Pensions stand or fall upon whether they are able to bring home the bacon. So far they have not been able either by promise or performance to give a shadow of justification for the belief that they will bring home the bacon. If the Amendment were to be carried it would give some degree of force to the board which is to be called into existence. The general consuming public would have the power to see that the Bill was properly administered. Then there might be a little more optimism both on the part of Conservative Members and Labour Members and also of the housewives of this country that they would get some bacon and would not have to pay 1s. 9d. or 1s. 10d. per lb. for it.
I have simply intervened to ask the Minister of Pensions to do a little rethinking. We have had a reasoned and masterly exposition given by my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley. A very respected Member of this House, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), stated in my own household that the finest British institution of which he could think was the breakfast institution of bacon and eggs. He could think of one alternative, and that was eggs and bacon, and I am inclined to agree with him. If this Bill is not a success, if the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Pensions make the Bill a failure by allowing interests to jerrymander and torpedo it, I shudder to think what will happen to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley when there is a national boycott of bacon and this great nation is converted into a coffee and rolls breakfast nation.

7.40 p.m.

Sir William Wayland: It is possible that there might be on the board a majority inimical to the trade which we want to benefit, or which it is proposed that the Bill will benefit. It is proposed that the industry should be reorganised in such a way that it will give greater benefit not only to the trade but also to the consumer by eliminating the middle man as much as possible. With that I am in entire agreement, but in order to carry that out efficiently you must have a majority on the board nominated by the producer and by the bacon curer. At the same time, there will be the independent members appointed by the Minister who must naturally, with the Minister


behind them, be able to exercise a considerable amount of influence upon the board as a whole. I must oppose the Amendment.

7.42 p.m.

Mr. Woods: It would appear from the speech of the hon. Member for Canterbury (Sir W. Wayland) and the speech of the Minister of Pensions that opposition to the Amendment is based upon suspicion of the neutral members, but such suspicion is entirely without foundation, as the additional members would be very carefully selected and the responsibility for their selection would be with the Minister.

Sir J. Lamb: Why does the hon. Gentleman suspect the other side?

Mr. Woods: I am not suspecting anybody. I have not got as far as that yet. If the hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) will wait a minute he will see the motives which are likely to actuate the various members of this board. Presumably the interests of members of the Development Board who represent the producers. primarily will be the interests of producers. There may be somewhere in the country a producer who produces pigs because he loves pigs, but I imagine that the overwhelming majority of pig producers produce pigs for profit, and that is their major concern. Similarly with the curing of bacon. Those who represent the Bacon Board naturally will be interested in that side of the industry. I have yet to be convinced that anybody would run a bacon-producing factory as a hobby. They do it because of profits. Therefore, the representatives of both boards will have one common interest, namely, the profit interest.
The Amendment suggests that the question of making profit out of the needs of the people, although it may be very important to hon. Members opposite, is not the supreme interest in this business. The major interest is that the whole industry, from production to the breakfast table, should be run economically and efficiently, and that the board, having these responsibilities and the administration of considerable funds, should not only have the confidence both of producers and curers, but it is of overwhelming importance that it should have the confidence of the country. The amended

constitution suggested in the Amendment would achieve that result. The question of the efficiency of the board has been raised by the Minister of Pensions and the last speaker, but no evidence has been forthcoming why the addition of men of wide administrative and financial experience would jeopardise the efficiency of the board. A good deal of discussion took place in Committee and also in the House which seemed to suggest that the only interests to be considered are those of the producers and the curers.

Mr. Turton: And the co-operatives.

Mr. Woods: I understand that the hon. Member is slightly interested in the cooperatives as producers, but he is not interested in the wider question of the co-operatives as consumers. When he interjected earlier he spoke of two interests, the producers and the curers. What are those interests, when they are analysed? We have to consider not merely the owner of the farm or the landlord but those who do the work—a very fine body of men who are the very basis of the agricultural industry, one of the poorest paid industries in the country. These men are highly skilled, they work long hours, they have very few amenities, they live in remote country places very often, and they have to live in homes which are inadequate.
The modern bacon producer would get a better price for his pigs if the industry were controlled in the way that we suggest and if there were on the board someone who could speak authoritatively for the agricultural workers, the people who are doing the work at very low wages, and who will be cut off from participating in the food they are producing if the industry is badly controlled and prices soar too much. The curer is purely the man who owns the factory. I am not under-estimating the owner of the factory, but I suggest that on the board there should be at least one voice to speak on behalf of those who are doing the work in the factories. When the bacon has been produced, another interest comes in, the retailer. We suggest that those who have to distribute the commodity might make a useful contribution to the board, especially as they would speak with authority on the types of bacon most suitable for production and most likely to meet the requirements of the people. Then there are the consumers, who receive very


little consideration. The consumers are entitled to representation. The Government are entitled to representation and, seeing that this Bill does not deal with the whole pig production, I think that there be on the board one representative to hold a watching brief for those who are concerned with pigs for pork. When we consider the matter we can discover a wide range of legitimate interests which might be represented on the board and would do useful service. I hope that when the Minister reflects on the matter he will, in the interests of the efficiency of the board and with a desire to have the confidence of the industry and the country behind the board, see his way, if he cannot accept our proposal, to bring forward a suggestion in another place which will embody the principles of our Amendment.

7.50 p.m.

Mr. Petherick: Not having been a Member of the Standing Committee on the Bill I am not as familiar with its terms as I should be, but I am and always have been interested in this problem ever since marketing boards were first set up. I would go a little further than the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), who made such a lucid speech on his group of Amendments, because it seems to me that, on the whole, these matters are better administered by an independent board, assisted by an advisory council. It would be interesting to know how it is that the Government, having appeared to move in that direction, are now apparently going back to the previous system. In one branch of the Ministry, the Department of Fisheries, when they introduced the Herring Industry Bill they went the whole hog—perhaps I ought to say the whole fish—and instead of having, as they had previously, a board consisting of people engaged in the trade, they went to the other extreme, I think very sensibly, and decided on a board for the herring industry consisting of three wholly independent members.
It seems to me that in the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries it is a case of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing. The Agricultural branch of the Ministry takes one line and the Fisheries branch takes another line. Which is right and which is left I do not know, but I should say that the Fishery department is right and the Agricultural

department is left. This is an extremely interesting matter, and I suggest that it should not be dealt with on ordinary party lines. There are hon. Members on this side of the House who feel as I do, and as most hon. Members opposite must feel, that, on the whole, these boards are more efficiently and more dispassionately managed by wholly independent members, assisted by an advisory council. I realise that it is impossible to take the Whips off on this question, and I am not so foolish as to suggest it, but I should like my hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions, if he replies, to say how it is that in regard to the Herring Industry Bill the Department have taken one line and in this case they are going back to the old system and taking up another line.

7.53 P.m.

Mr. E. J. Williams: I hope the Minister of Pensions will reply to the speech that we have just heard. Certainly the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) has not received an adequate reply. The Minister, in his answer, endeavoured to put up the defence that already there is some kind of foundation for the present procedure. We are paying a very high price for the good will of the interests, in being prepared to agree to the composition of the proposed board. The speeches that have been made show that a large number of interests will not be directly represented, and I think the Minister ought to give further consideration to the matter. The hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick) has indicated that the Government have a kind of dual policy, if they have a policy at all. In the Debate last week on the herring industry they said that they were prepared to set up a board of independent persons to administer the subsidy.
Surely, it would be a far better thing to have persons paid to administer Measures of this kind rather than to have persons who merely represent the industry. I cannot see how we can obtain anything like adequate rationalisation of any industry when it is left largely to the persons who are responsible for the present chaotic state of the industry to advise as to its conduct in the future. We have had instances of that for many years in regard to the mining industry. The same remark applies to agriculture in general. There can be no hope of industry producing products to the satisfaction


of the public generally when it is left to the persons who have mismanaged the industry in the past to obtain subsidies from Parliament and to become the major interests upon the boards created by Parliament. We can never hope to have satisfaction either as Members of Parliament or as consumers when it is left to these various vested interests to dominate the boards that are created.
I trust that the Minister of Pensions or the Minister of Agriculture will further reflect upon the Amendments moved from this side of the House. We cannot have confidence in control by the producers or the curers if in the past those interests have been inimical to the public. The purpose of this Bill indicates that we cannot have complete confidence in those people. I do not say this with any desire to cast a reflection upon them personally, but surely we cannot have the utmost confidence in the interests that have to a large extent created the problem that Parliament is trying to solve. The fact that they have created this problem indicates that we cannot have complete confidence in them in bringing about the amount of rationalisation that is essential. I hope the Minister will disregard the foundations upon which the Bill is based in this respect

and will endeavour to meet the reasonable argument of the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth and the arguments of other hon. Members.

7.59 P.m.

Mr. Ramsbotham: I have been asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick) why we do not treat the bacon industry in the same way as the herring industry in regard to the constitution of the board. I will give a short answer. In the industry with which we are dealing we have the framework of these marketing boards and we are building on that framework. In the case of the livestock industry there was no livestock marketing board, and a similar consideration applies to the herring industry. It is for these reasons that we have different systems. We cannot treat every industry the same. We have to take the circumstances as we find them. In this particular industry we want to carry the various interests with us; we want their good will and co-operation, and we have succeeded in doing that.

Question put, "That the word 'five' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 190; Noes, 122.

Division No. 258.]
AYES.
[8.0 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk N.)
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Harbord, A.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'ut'r S. G'gs)
Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.


Asks, Sir R. W.
Cranborne, Viscount
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Hepworth, J.


Atholl, Duchess of
Crooke, Sir J. Smedley
Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Crossley, A. C.
Higgs, W. F.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Crowder, J. F. E.
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Cruddas, Col. B.
Holmes, J. S.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.


Beit, Sir A. L.
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Hopkinson, A.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hors-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L


Bossom, A. C.
Doland, G. F.
Horsbrugh, Florence


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Donner, P. W.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Drewe, C.
Hunter, T.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Hutchinson, G. C.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Dunglass, Lord
Joel, D. J. B.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Eastwood, J. F.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W E
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)


Bull, B. B.
Ellis, Sir G.
Keeling, E. H.


Butcher, H. W.
Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Elmley, Viscount
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)


Cary, R. A.
Errington, E.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Leech, Sir J. W.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Everard, W. L.
Lees-Jones, J.


Christie, J. A.
Fildes, Sir H.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.


Clarke, Frank (Dartford)
Fox, Sir G. W. C.
Levy, T.


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Liddall, W. S.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Gledhill, G.
Little, Sir E. Graham-


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Gluckstein, L. H.
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.


Colfox, Major W. P.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.


Colville, Rt. Hon. John
Grimston, R. V.
Loftus, P. C.




Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Ramsden, Sir E.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


McKie, J. H.
Rayner, Major R. H.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Tate, Mavis C.


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Remer, J. R.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.


Moreing, A. C.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Turton, R. H.


Morgan, R. H.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Rowlands, G.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Warrender, Sir V.


Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Munro, P.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Wayland, Sir W. A.


O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Salmon, Sir I.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Wells, Sir Sydney


Owen, Major G.
Selley, H. R.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Perkins, W. R. D.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Peters, Dr. S. J.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st)
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Pilkington, R.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Somerset, T.
Wise, A. R.


Porritt, R. W.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Radford. E. A.
Spens, W. P.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)



Ramsbotham, H.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Captain Dugdale and Mr. Munro.




NOES


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Adamson, W. M.
Heyday, A.
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Ridley, G.


Banfield, J. W.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Riley, B.


Barnes, A. J.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Ritson, J.


Batey, J.
Holdsworth, H.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Hopkin, D.
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)


Benson, G.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Bevan, A.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Sexton, T. M.


Broad, F. A.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Silkin, L.


Bromfield, W.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Simpson, F. B.


Buchanan, G.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Burke, W. A.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cassells, T.
Kirby, B. V.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Chater, D.
Kirkwood, D.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Close, W. S.
Lanshury, Rt. Hon. G.
Sorensen, R. W.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Lawson, J. J.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Cocks, F. S.
Leach, W.
Stokes, R. R.


Cove, W. G.
Leonard, W.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Dagger, G.
Leslie, J. R.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Dalton, H.
Logan, D. G.
Thorne, W.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lunn, V
Tinker, J. J.


Day, H.
Macdo[...]d, G. (Ince)
Tomlinson, G.


Gobble, W.
McEntee, V. La T.
Viant, S. P


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
McGhee, H. G.
Walker, J.


Ede, J. C.
Maclean, N.
Watkins, F. C.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Marshall, F.
Watson, W. McL.


Foot, D. M.
Mathers, G.
Welsh, J. C.


Garro Jones, G. M.
Maxton, J.
Westwood, J.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Messer, F.
White, H. Graham


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Milner, Major J.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Montague, F.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Grenfell, D. R.
Muff, G.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Oliver, G. H.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Griffiths, J. (Llanally)
Paling, W.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Groves, T. E.
Parker, J.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Parkinson, J. A.



Hall, J. H, (Whitechapel)
Pearson, A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hardie, Agnes
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Mr. John and Mr. Anderson.


Harris, Sir P. A.
Price, M. P.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. T. Johnston: I beg page 2, line 4, at the end, to insert:
Provided that the persons nominated by the Pigs Marketing Board and the Bacon Marketing Board, respectively, shall include two representatives of the pig producing industry or the bacon industry in Scotland.

This Amendment is not designed in any narrow or parochial spirit. We may have our economic affairs guided or misguided for good or ill without regard to the birth-place of the man who is guiding them. The point behind the Amendment can be put briefly, and I think clearly. The


position at the moment is that on the Bacon Board there are 16 members and on the Pig Board 13 members. On the Bacon Board the Ministers may co-opt two members neither of whom may be, or need be, representatives of the Scottish bacon industry. On the Pig Board the Minister for Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland acting jointly may co-opt two members either of whom, or neither of whom, or both of whom, may be Scottish representatives. We are confidently expecting the support of the Secretary of State for Scotland for this Amendment. For many years, possibly for a century, we have had a bacon-curing industry in Scotland which for short we call the Ayrshire method of curing bacon. In England they have the Wiltshire method, but there is a fundamental difference between the two. How this difference originated I do not know, but it is this. In Scotland we kill the pig where it is fed; we skin the pig, and use the skin as the basis of our leather industry. The pigskin industry has employed a considerable number of people for many years in making purses and bags, but in England they do not kill the pig where it is fed but take it to an approved slaughter-house. They do not skin the pig after it is killed but cut it up in slices, and the English housewife would think there was something wrong if she did not find a rind of skin with her bacon on the plate in the morning.
The English, therefore, when buying their bacon pay for the skin, and they have no leather industry as a result. [Interruption.] I understand that there are some hon. Friends behind me who eat the rind. In Scotland we do not have a rind on a rasher of bacon. By this time it has been converted in a leather factory to a more profitable use. That is the fundamental difference between the two systems. In Scotland, if we had rind on our rasher of bacon we should think there was something wrong with it, and the English housewife if there was not a rind would think there was something wrong. As a result of our system of curing bacon we have a leather industry operating and functioning now, as it has been in Scotland for the last century. Those engaged in the leather industry in Scotland are apprehensive that their interests may be submerged in the English bacon-curing interests and that

we may lose our leather industry in consequence.
All sections of the industry in Scotland desire to get a statutory assurance that this age-long industry shall not be submerged but shall be adequately represented on the new board. The Minister of Agriculture may suggest a better alternative, or the Secretary of State for Scotland may be able to give us an assurance that we shall have more than two representatives of the pig producing industry or the bacon industry in Scotland on the board. The Amendment has been put down to secure such an assurance. We would like to have it as a statutory assurance, but if we cannot have that we shall be glad to have a guarantee from the Government that this ancient Scottish industry—and, goodness knows, we have few enough secondary industries now in Scotland—that this leather industry of ours, will not be taken away. I know that the Secretary of State for Scotland is as well aware of the facts as I am. This board is to be established, and there is no statutory guarantee that our special interests will be represented. In this Amendment we are not asking for any privileged position, or raising any sterile nationalist points; we are asking that an age-old industry shall not be totally submerged, but shall be adequately represented, and enabled to continue its functions.

8.16 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I am certain that the whole House, and certainly those hon. Members who come from North of the Tweed, listened with sympathy to the plea which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Stirling and Clackmannan (Mr. Johnston) made for the representation of Scottish pig-producing interests on the board. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman immediately that we are aware of the difference between the Ayrshire style and the Wiltshire style of curing; and indeed, even in England there are variations from the Wiltshire style—for example, the Midland cut. The Bill is so framed that it will give fair play to each of these various ways of disposing of the carcass of the pig. The Government are also aware of the importance of the pig leather trade, which is an ancillary trade to the method of curing pigs in Scotland. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for


Scotland, who acts jointly with me in these matters, has been very anxious to see, and successful in seeing, that every step was taken to ensure that the Scottish interest was adequately preserved.
All I will say to the right hon. Gentleman is that it would not be wise to impose any territorial limitation in regard to the representatives who are to be nominated. In the first place, the Bacon and Pigs Board covers the whole of Great Britain, and hitherto the schemes have been worked on a Great Britain basis, without there being any suspicion that Scottish interests were in any way overridden or forgotten. Secondly, the whole purpose of the Bill and its scheme, in securing these nominated members, is to ensure that the best men for the purposes of the industry as a whole are nominated. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider that that is a sufficient assurance that there will be a sufficient number of Scotsmen upon the board.
The position is that we do not wish to trammel the board by any arithmetical or numerical representation of this character. We believe that the interests of the industry as a whole will be best served if it continues to be treated on a Great Britain basis. We wish to see no territorial rivalries beyond the commercial rivalries occasioned by the merits of various styles of bacon curing, and we believe that the interests of the industry as a whole will be served if we leave the position such that the best men will be nominated. I can give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance that when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I come to this question we will see that the interests of Scotland are adequately represented, that the question to which the right hon. Gentleman has brought attention will not be overlooked, and that there will be no danger of the Ayrshire trade and the leather trade ancillary to it being overlooked. Having said that, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not press the Amendment. Indeed, it would be hard to justify a numerical proportion if one considers the amount of bacon produced in Scotland and England respectively, and I think it better to leave the matter as it is, with the assurance which I have given.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. Johnston: With the Minister's assurance, and with the agreement of my

hon. Friends, I will not press the Amendment. However, I wish to point out to the Minister that it is not quite accurate to say that hitherto there has been no territorial arrangement in these appointments. There are on the Bacon Board two co-optees, and on the Pigs Marketing Board two co-optees; and it is specifically stated that the two Ministers, the Secretary of State for Scotland being specially mentioned, are to make the selection. By inference, at least, there has been some representation of Scottish interests.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: And there will continue to be.

Mr. Johnston: I am glad to have that assurance. It was not out of any desire to have territorial representation, but out of a desire to have special industrial representation, that the Amendment was moved; but with the Minister's assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 2.—(Relations between Marketing Boards and Development Board.)

8.22 p.m.

Mr. Ramsbotham: I beg to move, in page 2, line 37, at the end, to insert:
Any power of the Development Board to give directions to a Marketing Board as respects the exercise of the Marketing Board's functions shall be deemed to include power to direct the Marketing Board to abstain from exercising its powers to such extent as may be specified in the direction.
This Amendment deals with a very small point. The Marketing Board may wish to do something which the Development Board thinks is inopportune, unwise or inconsistent with the directions which it has given to the Marketing Board. As the Bill now stands, it is possible that it might be held that the Development Board would not have express authority to direct the Marketing Board to refrain from exercising a particular power. This Amendment makes it clear that the Development Board will have that authority, and that if there is any doubt whether the Marketing Board is properly carrying out the directions of the Development Board, the will of the Development Board will prevail.

Amendment agreed to.

8.23 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 3, line 3, to leave out "acting


independently of the Development Board."
This Amendment and the following one are drafting Amendments to make clear the wording of the Clause. This is one of the points to which attention was called during the Committee stage by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander), to whom I am obliged for having assisted in this matter.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 3, line 7, at the end, insert:
Any decision of a Marketing Board whether or not to join with the Development Board in making a request under this Subsection shall be taken by the Marketing Board independently of the Development Board."—[Mr. Ramsbotham.]

8.24 p.m.

Mr. Ramsbotham: I beg to move, in page 3, line 23, to leave out from "that," to "transferred," in line 25, and to insert "where a power has been."
This Amendment, and the three following Amendments, have been put on the Paper in consequence of a suggestion made during the Committee stage by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage). In the Bill as it now is, it is provided that, in the event of the Marketing Board disobeying the instructions of the Development Board, its power shall be transferred to the Development Board and cannot be retransferred. It was pointed out with reason that that perhaps was rather too drastic, that it was a death sentence with no question of a reprieve. The Amendments provide that retransfer shall be possible after five years, and that it will not be impossible for all time to retransfer the power.

8.25 p.m.

Mr. Alexander: I much regret that the Minister has gone as far as he has gone in these Amendments to meet the request of the hon. and gallant Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage) and his hon. Friends. I pointed out in Standing Committee that it was very desirable that the Development Board should be of a far more independent character than is proposed in the Measure. If we are not to get the degree of independence in the board which we on this side desire, and if there are misdemeanours on the part of

the marketing boards as a result of which they are deprived of their powers, I strongly object to those powers being restored. I think the whole experience of the Government in the last two years has been of a kind to move them, more and more, in the direction of independent commissions. We are now dealing with a completely independent commission in relation to the sugar industry. There is an independent commission in the case of the important livestock industry and it is obvious from the fact that it has been found necessary to enlarge the independent membership of the Development Board, in the case of the pigs and bacon industry, that the Government in this case are moved by the same consideration.
We have not, however, been able to persuade the Government in this case to make the board a completely independent body, and in those circumstances I strongly object to the proposal that if either of the marketing boards should lose its powers as the result of any misdemeanour, those powers should thereafter be restored to them. I notice that there is on the Paper an Amendment to one of the Minister's Amendments in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Maldon (Sir E. Ruggles-Brise), who wants to reduce the period from five years to two years. I do not know whether I should be in order in dealing with that Amendment now—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Captain Bourne): I understand that Mr. Speaker proposes to call the Amendment to the Amendment to which the right hon. Gentleman refers and it would be better to wait until we reach it.

Mr. Alexander: I will only say that I should of course be even more strongly opposed to that proposal. At the moment I confine myself to the expression of my regret that the Minister has given way to importunities of this kind, which I think are unjustified, to the extent represented by his own Amendments.

8.28 p.m.

Colonel Sir Edward Ruggles-Brise: It is evident from the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken that he has misconceived the effect of the Amendments of my right hon. Friend the Minister and also the Amendment to one of those Amendments which I intend to move later.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We have not yet reached the point at which the hon. and gallant Member will be called upon to move his Amendment, and the matter does not arise on the Amendment at present before the House.

Sir E. Ruggles-Brise: May I deal with what the right hon. Gentleman has said and point out that he has overlooked the true meaning of these Amendments—both the Amendments of my right hon. Friend and the Amendment to one of those Amendments which I hope to be permitted to move later. There is nothing in the Minister's Amendments which says that the Development Board, having once taken over powers from either of the two Marketing Boards, need ever give back those powers. All the Minister's Amendment says is:
Nothing in this Section shall authorise the re-transfer of that power until five years have elapsed.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We have not yet reached that Amendment. We are still on the Amendment to line 23 and the discussion must be confined to it.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 3, line 26, leave out "had" and insert "has."

In line 28, leave out "was" and insert "is."—[Mr. Ramsbotham.]

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move in page 3, line 29, at the end, to insert:
Nothing in this Section shall authorise the re-transfer of that power until five years have elapsed from the date of the order effecting the transfer.

8.30 p.m.

Sir E. Ruggles-Brise: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 2, to leave out "five," and to insert "two."
I am sorry if I was premature in endeavouring to make some remarks on this point but I thought all these Amendments were consequential and were being considered together. I was pointing out that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) has misconceived the effect of this Amendment and the other Amendments on this point. He seems to assume that these words will make it obligatory on the Development Board to retransfer powers to either of the Marketing Boards within five years after such powers had been transferred,

Of course, the words have not that effect at all. They merely say that such powers can not be retransferred until five years have elapsed. Personally, I' am not satisfied with that period, and while I do not propose to repeat the arguments which I addressed to the Standing Committee on this question, I must, in view of what has happened, allude to them again.
There are three major reasons why it is unwise to allow too long a period during which the Development Board will be compelled to assume and retain powers where powers have been transferred. We have to remember that as regards the personnel of the Marketing Boards, the elected members are subject to election not once in five years, as we are, but every year. If either of the two boards does not conduct its business satisfactorily in the opinion of the constituents of those members, then they will be turned out, and therefore there is no need to make the statutory period for this purpose so long. Secondly, should one or other of the Marketing Boards fail to act in accordance with the wishes and direction of the Development Board or prove recalcitrant, the Development Board might consider it desirable to take the power into their own hands. But they might be deterred from doing so for the very reason that they did not wish to be burdened with the responsibility of carrying out functions which properly belonged to the Pigs Board or the Bacon Board. It might be very inconvenient to them to exercise a power which rightly belonged to those executive bodies. So you might reach this position, that the Development Board, while wishing to deal with one or other of the boards and feeling that it was almost their duty to assume one or other of their powers, might be deterred from so acting by the very fact that once they had taken over the transferred power, they could not then rid themselves of it for a period of five years.

Mr. Alexander: I think the hon. and gallant Member has overlooked my point, that where there were two boards in existence, they had to be amended instead of removed.

Sir E. Ruggles-Brise: There is nothing in this Amendment or in mine which will make it obligatory for the Development Board ever to retransfer a transferred power to either of the boards. Therefore


I cannot see the point of the right hon. Gentleman's objection. I was saying that in the event of my right hon. Friend accepting my Amendment, then again I would say that there is no compulsion, because two years instead of five are put in the Bill, on the Development Board to divest itself of the transferred powers which it has taken over. I admit that my right hon. Friend has gone some little way, and I agree that the situation is vastly improved and that now at least we have a period of years instead of eternity, as under the Bill originally, but I would seriously ask my right hon. Friend to consider whether, from his point of view, the two years would not be just as effective as the five, in view of the fact that neither one period nor the other makes it obligatory on the Development Board to divest itself of the transferred powers.

Colonel Ponsonby: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
The case has been so clearly put by my hon. and gallant Friend that I will not do more than formally to second the Amendment.

8.38 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: Hon. Members who were on the Standing Committee will remember what took place upstairs on this question. As the Bill was originally drafted, it provided that, should a Marketing Board fail to carry out the directions of the Development Board and should the Development Board assume the power which was abused, never again could the Marketing Board perform the functions transferred from it. That was put in for the purpose of providing an adequate deterrent against any light shifting of responsibility, and when one remembers that, in order to make such an order, the Minister has to come to Parliament, and all the ponderous machinery of getting an order through both Houses has to be gone through, one will see that the House does not want these orders to be rendered nugatory too easily by any quick reversal of policy. As the Bill was originally drafted, it meant that if a Marketing Board failed to carry out the directions of the Development Board, that function should be removed from it for ever; but in the course of our discussions upstairs the case was put that perhaps for some

temporary cause a Marketing Board might momentarily fail in its duty and might be succeeded on a fresh election by another body which desired to do its work properly, and that therefore it was impolitic to place this ban upon its resuming its lost function. It was urged that "never" is a long time. I was indebted to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage) for the suggestion that perhaps the difficulty might be got over if a time limit were imposed within which the transferred powers could not be restored. I promised to consider it, and this Amendment is the result. But it is clear that the time limit must be sufficiently long to provide an ample deterrent, both to the Marketing Board and to the Development Board from seeking the transference of these powers.
My hon. and gallant Friend has drawn attention to the case where the Development Board itself might desire to take over a function of a Marketing Board. The intention of the Bill is that the Development Board should not come to such a decision lightly, and the view that I would urge upon the House is that if the Development Board, in coming to the decision that it wanted to take over a certain function, knows that if it does, it cannot get rid of it for five years, that is a salutary check upon any impulsive action in that direction and means that the decision to transfer any such power to itself will be reached only after mature reflection. It is a serious thing if it is not made clear by the House that failure by a Marketing Board to carry out the directions of the Development Board would have a very serious effect on the whole scheme of the Bill. It is no light transgression; it means that the direction of policy vested in the Development Board might be lost or thwarted through such a transgression. I have gone so far as to recognise that there may be the exceptional case wherein it might be advisable, in changed circumstances, to retransfer to a Marketing Board powers which it had lost. I have gone that distance, but I still adhere to making the period sufficiently long to make it a deterrent on the Marketing Board not lightly to refuse to carry out a direction of the Development Board, and a deterrent on the Development Board not lightly to assume a function of a Marketing Board which it might find irksome and wish soon to retransfer. I hope the


House will agree that I have gone as far as I can to meet the wishes of both sides.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.

Question put, "That the proposed words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 181; Noes, 115.

Division No. 259.]
AYES.
[8.45 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Radford, E. A.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Grimston, R. V.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Ramsbotham, H.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Ramsden, Sir E.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Harbord, A.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Rayner, Major R. H.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Remer, J. R.


Belt, Sir A. L.
Hepworth, J.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Bossom, A. C.
Herbert, Capt. Sir S. (Abbey)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Higgs, W. F.
Rowlands, G.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Holmes, J. S.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Hopkinson, A.
Russell, Sir Alexander


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Salmon, Sir I.


Bull, B. B.
Hunter, T.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Burghley, Lord
Hutchinson, G. C.
Selley, H. R.


Butcher, H. W.
Joel, D. J. B.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Cary, R. A.
Keeling, E. H
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Christie, J. A.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U.B'lf'st)


Clarke, Frank (Dartford)
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E Grinstead)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Somerset, T.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Leech, Sir J. W.
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Lees-Jones, J.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Collox, Major W. P.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Levy, T.
Spens, W. P.


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Liddall, W. S.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Lindsay, K. M.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Lipson, D. L.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Little, Sir E. Graham-
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Crooke, Sir J. Smedley
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Tasker, Sir R I.


Cruddas, Col. B.
Loftus, P. C.
Tate, Mavis C.


Culverwell, C. T.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Thomas, J. P. L.


Davies, C. (Montgomery)
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Manninaham-Buller, Sir M
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon H. D. R.
Turton, R. H.


Deland, G. F.
Markham, S. F.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Donner, P. W.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Warrender, Sir V.


Dower, Major A. V. G.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Drewe, C.
Morgan, R. H.
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Wayland, Sir W. A


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S (Cirencester)
Wells, Sir Sydney


Eastwood, J. F.
Munro, P.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Eckerstey, P. T.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H H.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Ellis, Sir G.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Elliston, Capt. G. S.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Elmley, Viscount
Owen, Major G.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Errington, E.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Petherick, M.



Everard, W. L.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Fildes, Sir H.
Pilkington, R.
Captain Dugdede and Major Sir


Gledhill, G.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
James Edmondson.


Gluckstein, L. H.
Perritt, R. W.





NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Broad, F. A.
Daggar, G.


Adamson, W. M.
Bromfield, W.
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Buchanan, G.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Burke, W. A.
Dobbie, W.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Cassells, T.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)


Bonfield, J. W.
Chater, D.
Ede, J. C.


Barnes, A. J.
Close, W. S.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)


Batey, J.
Glynn, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Foot, D. M.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Cocks, F. S.
Garro Jones, G. M.


Benson, G.
Cove, W. G.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)




Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Logan, D. G.
Sexton. T. M.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Lunn, W.
Silkin, L.


Grenfell, D. R.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Simpson, F. B.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
McEntee, V. La T.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
McGhee, H. G.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Maclean, N.
Sorensen, R. W.


Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Marshall, F.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Hardie, Agnes
Mathers, G.
Stokes, R. R.


Harris, Sir P. A.
Maxton, J.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Messer, F.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Hayday, A.
Milner, Major J.
Thorne, W.


Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Montague, F.
Thurtle, E.


Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Muff, G.
Tinker, J. J.


Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Naylor, T. E.
Tomlinson, G.


Holdsworth, H.
Oliver, G. H.
Viant, S. P.


Hopkin, D.
Paling, W.
Walker, J.


Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Parker, J.
Watkins, F. C.


Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Parkinson, J. A.
Watson, W. McL.


John, W.
Pearson, A.
Welsh, J. C.


Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Westwood, J.


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Price, M. P.
White, H. Graham


Kelly, W. T.
Quibell, D. J. K.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Kirby, B. V.
Ridley, G.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Kirkwood, D.
Riley, B.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Lawson, J. J.
Ritson, J.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Leach, W.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Leonard, W.
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)



Leslie, J. R.
Seely, Sir H. M.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Groves.

CLAUSE 3.—(Provision in the event of the winding-up of either of the Marketing Boards.)

8.52 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 4, line 39, at the end, to insert:
Provided that the Development Board shall, in performing any functions which were functions of the Pigs Marketing Board, act as far as may he in consultation with the body of persons mentioned in the last preceding Sub-section.
This Clause deals with what will happen if for various reasons the Pigs Marketing Board or the Bacon Marketing Board passes out of existence. There then comes into existence a body of persons who can advise the Development Board as to the interests of the respective constituents. In Committee attention was drawn by the hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) to an omission and to the fact that the Development Board ought to consult the body representing the late board in the event of its not being in existence to perform any of its functions.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 5.—(Factory rationalisation schemes.)

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 5, line 28, to leave out "'thereby."
In the course of our discussions upstairs attention was drawn to this word in the Clause which refers to factory rationalisation schemes, which is an important part of this plan. Since these words were drafted there have arisen doubts of a legal character as to whether,

if the word "thereby" were retained in its position in the Bill, legal objection might not be taken to other measures as well as to the actual rationalisation measures themselves. The problem of rationalisation involves two factors: one, the reduction of redundancy of curing capacity and the other the imposition of efficiency measures on the factories which remain. The legal doubt raised was whether or not if the word "thereby" were left in someone might be able to hold up the efficiency measures by saying that what the Bill authorised was the rationalisation scheme which was founded upon the reduction of redundancy of curing capacity. The Government feel that this problem of redundancy is so important that it ought to be kept in the forefront of any rationalisation scheme to be brought into being. Therefore, while in order to escape the dangers of the word "thereby" we are prepared to remove it, I should like to add that I propose in Clause 6 to move an Amendment to line 17 in these terms:
After 'scheme' to insert 'satisfactorily provides for regulating the extent of the facilities for producing bacon in Great Britain.'
The effect of that will be to place the obligation upon the Minister, when considering a rationalisation scheme, to satisfy himself that not only will the efficiency of the bacon industry be improved but that the scheme itself deals with the redundancy problem. We shall, therefore, get over the difficulty by leaving out the word "thereby" and inserting an


Amendment to put upon the Minister the duty of satisfying himself that a rationalisation scheme does deal with redundancy.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 6.—(Preparation of factory rationalisation schemes.)

8.58 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: I beg to move, in page 6, to leave out lines 5 to 18.
The 12 or 13 lines which it is proposed to omit are designed merely to delay the production of a rationalisation scheme. The Bacon Marketing Board have in the past apparently done nothing towards rationalisation.

Mr. Spens: No.

Mr. Williams: The hon. and learned Member can say "No" but they have done little or nothing. Now if they send a letter intimating that they are about to produce a scheme the Development Board will have no power to submit a scheme to the Minister for a period of six months. Why that six months should be there leaves me guessing. I can only imagine that the Bacon Marketing Board, who in the past have shown no desire to produce a rationalisation scheme, are prepared to produce one in the future. After all, any scheme produced by the Bacon Marketing Board will have to be submitted to the Development Board, examined closely by them, then sent to the Minister and publicised and advertised, all leading to delay, and I do not see the necessity for this delay of six months which is suggested in paragraph (a) of Clause 6. It is proper to give the. Bacon Marketing Board the power to produce a rationalisation scheme ahead of the Development Board if they desire to use that power quickly. but I see no justification for telling the Bacon Marketing Board "If you want to delay the production of a rationalisation scheme for seven or eight months all you have to do is to send a letter to the Minister on the last day of the month intimating that you are about to prepare a scheme, and then the Development Board will be sterilised for the next six months." The right hon. Gentleman has just said that the Bill will succeed or fail according to whether or not a rationalisation scheme is effectively carried through, and that being the case the sooner such a scheme is produced the better, and I suggest that I

am helping the Minister and helping the industry in asking for these lines to be deleted, so that a scheme can be produced by one or other or both of these organisations at the earliest possible moment.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I appreciate the desire of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) to assist us in this matter, and have always been aware that he attaches great importance to the speedy rationalisation of the industry, but the purpose of the lines which he is proposing to delete is not really of a dilatory character. They are designed to prevent the waste of effort by two bodies overlapping in the production of a rationalisation scheme. The idea enshrined in the Clause as it stands is that the Bacon Marketing Board itself should have the first try at producing a rationalisation scheme, and, as the House has been informed, it has anticipated the passing of this Measure and is now engaged, in conjunction with the right hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens), on the problem. A rationalisation scheme cannot be hurriedly concocted. A vast number of interests have to be consulted and considered, and if the scheme is to be a good one time is necessary for its preparation. But it would surely be a waste of effort if, at a time when a rationalisation scheme is being prepared by the Bacon Marketing Board, the Development Board were to switch its attention from the many other matters of policy with which it ought to occupy itself during the first six months of its life in order to do work which another body is already doing.
The idea of introducing a time factor is to ensure as far as we can that the Bacon Marketing Board shall prepare this rationalisation scheme and leave the Development Board six months in which to devote its attention to the very important duties which will have to be considered, and that both boards for the first six months of their life shall work in separate compartments so far as this matter is concerned, in order that the work may be accomplished without duplication of effort. That is the reason for the provision, and I believe it to be a wise one. The omission of the words which it is proposed to delete might lead—though I do not say they would, be-


cause people are probably more sensible than to do everything which they might do—to a great waste of effort. It might leave the Development Board uncertain whether they were to proceed at once because another body might take the job out of their hands. It might also impose upon the Development Board the idea that Parliament desired them to draw up a rationalisation scheme even though the work was being actively pursued by another body.

9.4 P.m.

Mr. Alexander: In Committee the Minister met us to some extent, after a Debate engaged in fiercely by both sides, by reducing the period from 12 months to 6 months, and while I cordially agree with what my hon. Friend has said about the whole intention of rationalisation it is only in order not to delay the House that we shall not divide upon this Amendment, recognising that the position, although still unsatisfactory, is better than it was when the Bill went to Committee.

Amendment negatived.

9.5 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 7, line 17, after "scheme," to insert:
satisfactorily provides for regulating the extent of the facilities for producing bacon in Great Britain and.
This Amendment is consequential upon the Amendment which was agreed to just now, leaving out the word "thereby."

Amendment agreed to.

9.6 p.m.

Mr. Turton: I beg to move, in page 7, line 28, to leave out from "Board," to the end of the Sub-section.
The Clause which we are now considering is really the core of the Bill, because if you do not get a satisfactory rationalisation scheme the whole purpose of the Bill will be frustrated. During the Committee stage I was alarmed about the proviso to Sub-section (6), which means that although the Development Board may have taken great care to prepare a rationalisation scheme, the Minister may have heard all the objections and those objections may have caused the scheme to be modified, all that work can be thrown away unless the Bacon Marketing Board approve within 28 days, or such longer period as the Minister may ap-

point, and no satisfactory rationalisation scheme can come into operation. On an earlier Amendment the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) said that unless the composition of the Development Board were altered in accordance with that Amendment, you would get no rationalisation scheme or factory, but the Development Board have not the last word. That last word rests with the Bacon Marketing Board, and it is undesirable in a Bill of this kind to indicate to the Bacon Marketing Board that they can stonewall any factory rationalisation scheme.
Let me remind the House of the position of the factories. In this country there are more than 600 bacon factories. Of that number, 581 produced from five to 400 cwts. per week; the number of factories producing from 400 to 800 cwts. per week number 20, while those that produce more than 800 cwts. per week, number io, I understand. Compare with that position the situation in Denmark, where there are some 85 factories, all producing more than 800 cwts. per week. In that comparison lies the reason why the British fanner gets a lower price for his pigs than does the Danilli farmer; it is that the huge majority of factories have a production of under 400 cwts. While I see the advantage of having very small factories and curers producing mainly for the retail market, I think that in all cases we ought to rationalise out of existence the medium factory that has not an economic management making it possible to earn a profit—again I use the word "profit," but I have explained what I mean by it—of 3s. per pig. If you are to pay your overhead charges and pay those who promote the enterprise, you require a gross profit of from 10s. to 15s. per pig. Is it fair to let the whole factory rationalisation scheme depend upon the votes of the Bacon Marketing Board, who, of necessity, must represent a majority of small factories, as opposed to the large factories?
This matter was considered in 1932 by the Reorganisation Commission, and in their view the Pig Industry Development Board should have been given power to buy up and close down redundant, inefficient and badly-managed factories. The successor of that idea of the Pig Industry Development Board is the Development Board with which we are


dealing in the Bill, and not the Bacon Marketing Board. For those reasons I ask the Minister to alter the wording of the Bill and, if he will not accept my Amendment, to cut out the last word privilege of the Bacon Marketing Board and give an undertaking that the wording shall be changed when the Bill goes to another place so that it will be no longer possible for the Bacon Marketing Board to stonewall, block and frustrate any factory rationalisation scheme.

Colonel Ponsonby: I beg to second the Amendment.

9.10 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: I hope that the Minister will accept the Amendment. For the first time in my life I am in agreement with the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). We heartily agree with the Amendment and think that the Government should accept it. We have heard from the Minister that the Development Board are in process of preparing a rationalisation scheme.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The Bacon Marketing Board.

Mr. Williams: H they prepare a scheme, submit it to the Development Board and to the Minister, and if objections are made and modifications brought about and inquiries are held, then, as the final result, this scheme, originally produced by the Bacon Marketing Board, cannot be approved unless the board agree. That is not a satisfactory position. The hon. Member is quite correct. If the Bacon Marketing Board produce the scheme and everybody seems to be satisfied, it should not be left to them in the last resort to be able to hold up the scheme.

9.12 p.m.

Mr. Ramsbotham: It is true that if the Bacon Marketing Board were so ill-advised, unwise and insane as to wish to hold up a scheme. for factory rationalisation for the period of, I think it is, two years, unless the Minister otherwise decided, they could do so under the terms of this proviso, but following upon what I have said upon a previous Amendment hon. Members will bear in mind that the Bill is based upon the principles of the Agricultural Marketing Act. It is very sad to see the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) disowning his own child. Under the Agricultural

Marketing Act this scheme could not come into operation unless registered producers voted as a whole. Under Sub-section (5, c) of Section i of the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, which I have no doubt the hon. Member supported vigorously when it was before the House, it is provided, in regard to the modification of a scheme, that the Minister should give notice of the proposed modifications, and that unless within four weeks, or such longer period as the Minister might allow, they were approved, the Minister could not lay the scheme before Parliament.
The general principle surely is that if we took away, as we should if the Amendment were accepted, the industry's last word, we should be departing from the principles of the Marketing Act upon which the Bill is founded, on the assumption that the Bacon Marketing Board do not desire rationalisation and will do their utmost to postpone it. Even supposing that an unlikely event of that kind happened, the curers, from what we know they are doing already in the way of preparing schemes, are obviously as desirous as any Member of this House that factory rationalisation should be proceeded with. Moreover, if any utterly unwise and imprudent measure should be proposed, substantial sanctions can be brought into operation under the Bill. If there is no rationalisation scheme in operation within two years of the passing of the Act, or a shorter time if my right hon. Friend should so decide, various consequences would come into play.
For instance, there would be no conditions attached to the licence, except as regards the condition of the premises, there would be no exemptions of longterm contracts, and the quota system would disappear; and the Bacon Marketing Board and the curers very naturally set great store by the protection, or quasi-protection, which these provisions at present give. It is inconceivable, therefore, that the Bacon Marketing Board would be so unwise and imprudent as to take action which would deprive their industry of the very things which the members of the industry require. For these reasons we should keep the framework and principle of the Marketing Acts in being, and, assuming that the Bacon Marketing Board is in a position to be relied upon, that is to say, is composed of intelligent and sensible individuals, I cannot see that there is any case for the Amendment.

9.17 p.m.

Mr. Alexander: I should have thought that the Ministry might have learned a little about this Amendment since the principle was discussed on the Clause in Committee. I then tried to put before the Minister what could be done to meet the situation. I said:
If the Minister would say that within a certain period they had expressed their views to him for consideration, that would be another matter, but it says that they must approve of the draft, which is quite another thing."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee C), 10th May, 1938; col. 89.]
I am sure the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) would be quite willing, not merely to leave out these words, but to provide that, if there has been any substantial Amendment in any scheme of the Bacon Marketing Board, they should be consulted about any such Amendment; but to make it a condition of a rationalisation scheme that the Bacon Marketing Board must approve of it seems to me to be ridiculous. I suggest that the Minister should accept the Amendment as it stands, and then we should be quite agreeable to his putting in, at a later stage of the Bill, words which would make it necessary to consult the Bacon Marketing Board about any Amendment which might be incorporated during the further consideration of the scheme. It ought not, however, to be the final condition that the Bacon Marketing Board must approve.

9.19 p.m.

Mr. Spens: I should like to suggest to the House why the last word in this case ought to be with the Bacon Marketing Board. I do not think my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) appreciates the fact that a rationalisation scheme, which, as he says, if it is to be effective, will rationalise out of existence a number of factories, ought not to be imposed on an industry against that industry's will, particularly when whatever compensation is to be paid to those on whom the axe falls, and who have to give up their life's work, is to be solely contributed by the industry itself. I was rather surprised that such a proposal should come from this side of the House, and that a board other than the board representing the industry should be given power to carry into effect, against the will of the industry, a scheme which must necessarily be so drastic and to which only the industry is going to

contribute. Moreover, as my right hon. Friend has reminded the House, safeguards exist in the Bill.
Unless there is an effective rationalisation scheme within two years, we shall be back in the chaos which existed when the industry was carried on before any marketing scheme came into effect at all. It is fully appreciated by the industry that an effective rationalisation scheme is as much in their interest as it is in the interests of the producers, the consumers or anyone else. It is proposed that the Development Board should have power to decide the amount of compensation to be paid to a factory that is to go out of existence, and that, however generous may be the amount which has to be raised from the other members of the industry, they should not be able to say, "No, we cannot afford such terms as that." I do not think my hon. Friend has appreciated the difficulties of getting a rationalisation scheme on its legs unless the last word is with the body that represents the industry as a whole.
I agree that it means that my hon. Friend and every other Member of the House has to assume that the marketing boards and the new Development Board are going to try to make the Bill a success. Too many of the speeches this evening have been delivered on the assumption that these boards are going to try to obstruct the Bill, and not to make it a success. I would, however, remind the House that negotiations with a view to this Bill taking its present form started as long ago as before last January. They have gone on month after month, with the closest co-operation between the Ministry, the two boards and everyone concerned in the industry, with a view to trying to introduce to the House a Measure that was accepted by the various interests in the industry, and to these interests working loyally to try to make it a success. This constant suggestion and suspicion against one board or the other is not going to help to make this scheme effective when it comes into force. I think we all want to see it a success from the point of view both of the producers and of the curers. I hope the Minister will not accept the Amendment, but will trust the Bacon Marketing Board to be as loyal in carrying out the scheme as any other body, and will leave to them the last word on the rationalisation scheme.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 186; Noes, 125.

Division No. 260.]
AYES.
[9.24 p.m.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Pilkington, R.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Aibery, Sir Irving
Grimston, R. V.
Porritt, R. W.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Radford, E. A.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Hambre, A. V.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Harbord, A.
Ramsbotham, H.


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Ramsden, Sir E.


Atholl, Duchess of
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Rathbonc, J. R. (Bodmin)


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Hepworth, J.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Beit, Sir A. L.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Ramer, J. R.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Herbert, Capt. Sir S. (Abbey)
Rickards, C. W. (Skipton)


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Higgs, W. F.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Holmes, J. S.
Rowlands, G.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Hopkinson, A.
Russell, Sir Alexander


Bull, B. B.
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Burghley, Lord
Horsbrugh, Florence
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Butcher, H. W.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Selley, H. R.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Hunter, T.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Cary, R. A.
Hutchinson, G. C.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Joel, D. J. B.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st)


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Keeling, E. H.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Somerset, T.


Colfox, Major W. P.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Leech, Sir J. W.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Lees-Jones, J.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Spens, W. P.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Cranborne, Viscount
Levy, T.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'rn'I'd)


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Liddall, W. S.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Crooke, Sir J. Smedley
Lindsay, K. M.
Strauss, H. G. Norwich)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Lipson, D. L.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Cruddas, Col. B.
Little, Sir E. Graham-
Tate, Mavis C.


Culverwell, C. T.
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.
Thomas, J. P. L.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Looker-Lawson, Comdr. O. S.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


De la Bère, R.
Loftus, P. C.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Mebane, W. (Huddersfield)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Deland, G. F.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Donner, P. W.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M
Warrender, Sir V.


Dower, Major A. V. G.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Markham, S. F.
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Wayland, Sir W. A


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Wells, Sir Sydney


Dunglass, Lord
Mitcheson, Sir G. G.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Eastwood, J. F.
Moore, Lleut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Eckersley, P. T.
Morgan, R. H.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Ellis, Sir G.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Elliston, Capt. C. S.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Wise, A. R.


Elmley, Viscount
Munro, P.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Errington, E.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Everard, W. L.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Fildes, Sir H.
Perkins, W. R. D.



Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)
Peters, Dr. S. J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gledhill, G.
Petherick, M.
Lieut.-Colonel Kerr and Major


Gluckstein, L. H.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Sir James Edmondson.


Grant-Ferris, R.






NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Bremfield, W.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)


Adams, D, M. (Poplar, S.)
Buchanan, G.
Dobble, W.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Burke, W. A.
Ede, J. C.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Cassells, T.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Charleton, H. C.
Foot, D. M.


Banfield, J. W.
Cluse, W. S.
Gallacher, W.


Barnes, A. J.
Cooks, F. S.
Gerro Jones, G. M.


Batey, J.
Cove, W. G.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Dagger, G.
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)


Benson, G.
Dalton, H.
Green, W. H. (Deptford)


Broad, F. A.
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.




Grenfell, D. R.
Lunn, W.
Sexton, T. M.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'abro, W.)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Silkin, L.


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
McEntee, V. La T.
Simpson, F. B.


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
McGhee, H. G.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Groves, T. E.
McGovern, J.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
MacLaren, A.
Sorensen, R. W.


Hardie, Agnes
Maclean, N.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Harris, Sir P. A.
Marshall, F.
Stokes, R. R.


Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Maxton, J.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Hayday, A.
Messer, F.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Milner, Major J.
Thurtle, E.


Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Montague, F.
Tinker, J. J.


Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Muff, G.
Tomlinson, G.


Holdsworth, H.
Naylor, T. E.
Turton, R. H.


Hopkin, D.
Oliver, G. H.
Viant, S. P.


Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Owen, Major G.
Walker, J.


Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Paling, W.
Watkins, F. C.


John, W.
Parker, J.
Watson, W. McL.


Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Parkinson, J. A.
Welsh, J. C.


Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Pearson, A.
Westwood, J.


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
White, H. Graham


Kelly, W. T.
Price, M. P.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Pritt, D. N.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Kirby, B. V.
Quibell, D. J. K.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Kirkwood, D.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Ridley, G.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Latham. Sir P.
Riley, B.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Lawson, J. J.
Ritson, J.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Leach, W.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)



Leonard, W.
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Leslie, J. R.
Seely, Sir H. M.
Mr. Mathers and Adamson.


Logan, D. G.

CLAUSE 7.—(Amendment and revocation of factory rationalisation scheme.)

9.32 p.m.

Colonel Ponsonby: I beg to move, in page 8, line 9, after the first "Board," to insert "or by the Pigs Marketing Board."
This matter was discussed in Committee and I will not keep the House very long. The point is that if a factory rationalisation scheme is not proceeding to the advantage o fthose engaged in the bacon industry the scheme may be revoked or amended, but such action will be taken on representations made to the Minister by the Development Board, or by the Bacon Marketing Board, or by the prescribed number of holders of producers' licences. The only parties who are left out are the Pigs Marketing Board, in fact the representatives of the pig producers. It is quite possible that the pig producers would like to make representations. Cases might arise, perhaps where a factory is wrongly located, where it would be an advantage to give the representatives of the pig producers the right to make complaints to the Minister, but under this Sub-section that is at present impossible. I know that the right hon. Gentleman might say that under Clause 30 (2) such representations could be made, but it is much better that, if such a complaint is to be made, the Pigs Marketing Board should be able to make it under this Sub-section.

Mr. Liddall: I beg to second the Amendment.

9.35 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: This Sub-section provides a special safeguard for consideration of a rationalisation scheme by those who are primarily affected by it. The persons primarily affected by the rationalisation scheme are, in the first place, the members of the bacon curing industry, whose livelihood is affected, and, in the second place, the Development Board, who are responsible for the general supervision of a rationalisation scheme. In the case of these two bodies, special powers are given by this Sub-section because they are so intimately affected and their fortunes are so closely wrapped up in it. The same considerations do not apply to the Pigs Marketing Board, and the position is that, by this Sub-section, the Minister is bound to refer the matter to the Committee of Investigation, and hound, on receiving an adverse report from that body, to amend or revoke the scheme. We think it is better to leave the Pigs Marketing Board with the resources which they have if the rationalisation scheme goes against them: namely, to invoke the ordinary Committee of Investigation procedure.
I would impress upon my hon. and gallant Friend that this question of rationalisation is a question which affects the curing industry to a very great degree. Its members are asked to do something


very important from their own individual point of view and the point of view of the industry. It is not correct to say that everything which concerns the Bacon Marketing Board for their own industry affects equally the Pigs Marketing Board. In my view the Pigs Marketing Board are adequately safeguarded. I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will not persevere in this Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 8.—(Licensing of bacon factories.)

Amendment made: In page g, line 33, leave out "consecutive period of eight," and insert "period of eight consecutive."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

CLAUSE 9.—(Applications for, and form of licences.)

9.39 P.m

Mr. Ramsbotham: I beg to move, in page 10, line 42, at the end, to insert:
Provided that if and so far as the processes by which it is proposed that bacon should be produced on any premises are secret processes, an applicant for a licence in respect of those premises shall not be bound to give any particulars of those processes which would reveal the nature thereof so far as it is secret.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) raised upstairs the question of secret processes and recipes. This Amendment is put forward with the object of providing that an applicant for a licence is not bound to reveal any secret processes. On the other hand, it has been pointed out that if he should state that the process was secret and in fact it was not secret, he would render himself liable to penalties for making a false statement.

Amendment agreed to.

9.40 p.m.

Mr. Liddall: I beg to move, in page 12, line 4, to leave out "sixty," and to insert "one hundred and twenty."
I hope the House will not think that I am endeavouring to secure, during the Report stage, a rehearing of an Amendment which has not been dealt with in Committee. I put this Amendment down during the Committee stage, but, unfortunately, having also to sit on another Committee, I was unable to be present when the Amendment should have been moved. The object of the Amendment is to extend the maximum output up to which curers may be able to produce without rationalisation being applied

to them, and, incidentally, to increase the output of bacon which they would be able to produce from pigs purchased in the open market.
As the Bill stands, all curers producing more than 60 cwts in four weeks, or an average of 15 cwts per week, will be required to obtain what is known as a producer's licence, and to purchase pigs for the purpose of bacon on a long contract system. When the bacon marketing scheme and the pigs marketing scheme were brought into existence it was urged in favour of them that they were put forward in order to provide an expanding bacon industry in this country. As a result, a substantial number of the smaller curers in the bacon marketing scheme have been slowly but steadily increasing their business. If, however, the limit of 60 cwts. is the maximum which a small curer will be permitted to produce without the necessity of buying his pigs on a long-term contract, that expanding production will be checked so far as the small men are concerned. They may be small in terms of output, but from their very circumstances they are normally able to obtain their supplies of pigs for curing without any great difficulty, and, owing incidentally to their local situation, in respect of centres of consumption, they meet a local demand and a local taste for bacon.
It has been suggested, I believe, that the Amendment should be resisted because if the figure were increased it would mean such a volume of bacon being produced for this from pigs purchased on contracts as would disturb the whole balance of the scheme. I would remind the House that the Minister of Agriculture, during the Second Reading, said it was estimated that there would be some 490 curers who would be entitled to a small curer's licence—that is to say, some 490 who would be entitled to produce up to 60 cwts. of bacon in four weeks, other than from pigs bought on contract. The Minister said, however, that these 490 curers produced a negligible proportion of the whole bacon produced, in that they produced less than 5 per cent. of the total in this country. That being the case, if this Amendment is accepted the aggregate of the production of the curers who would come within the scope of the Amendment would, surely, still be less than 10 per cent. of the whole.
It should be remembered that these curers who are to be exempted from the contract system will not participate in the subsidy. That subsidy will be given to those registered curers who purchase on the contract system, and, apart from that, they will be required to make contributions to the Bacon Marketing Board, give returns of output and be subject to the penalties imposed on all licence holders under this part of the Bill if they are guilty of any breach of the conditions endorsed upon their licences. I hope that the Minister will accept the Amendment.

Colonel Ponsonby: I beg to second the Amendment.

9.46 p.m.

Mr. Ramsbotham: My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Liddall) has said that there are between 400 and 500 of these small curers and the effect of the Amendment would be to enable that number, who would at present come within the 60 cwts. limit, to increase their production to 120 cwts. per month without any control over efficiency which this Bill otherwise provides. It would also increase the class by the addition of about 70 curers whose aggregate output last year was two-thirds of the aggregate output of the small curer class—the 400 or 500 curers I mentioned. Beyond that the Amendment would mean that any new licences which might be issued under the Bill to the small curer class would automatically give the right of production up to 120 cwts. per month, instead of 60 cwts. as contemplated in the Bill. The result, broadly speaking, of passing the Amendment would be to increase very substantially the quantity of bacon which would be produced without any control over the efficiency of production, and there would be a corresponding increase in the number of pigs that could be purchased outside the long contract system.

Mr. Liddall: Will the hon. Gentleman inform the House what class of curers are more efficient than the smaller curers in this country to-day?

Mr. Ramsbotham: I do not know that I am called upon to go into the efficiency or otherwise of the small curer, but no doubt it is to the advantage of all curers that they should come under the efficiency provisions of the Bill. Therefore, if I may advise the House, it would be very unwise indeed to accept the

Amendment, and contrary to the whole spirit and intention of the Bill. It would introduce a very substantial amount of bacon which would no longer be subject to the efficiency measures we desire to impose, and I am afraid that the Amendment cannot be accepted.

Amendment negatived.

9.49 P.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 12, line II, at the end, to insert:
Provided that nothing in this Sub-section shall render it obligatory on the Development Board to issue a small curer's licence in respect of any premises if a producer's licence previously granted under this Act in respect thereof has ceased to have effect.
There are certain provisions in the Bill for the protection of small curers. They have the right to a licence if they were in possession of one before. The point was overlooked that, if a large curer has by any chance had his licence revoked for good and sufficient reasons, he might, because he had previously been a curer, claim a small curer's licence. Such a result would be very unfortunate, and the Amendment has been put down to deal with the position.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 10.—(Licences only to be refused on specified grounds.)

9.50 p.m.

Mr. Alexander: I beg to move, in page 12, line 28, after "1935," to insert:
that the existing supply of bacon, whether produced in Great Britain or elsewhere, exceeds eleven million five hundred thousand hundredweights.
This is an Amendment to which my hon. Friends and I attach a considerable amount of importance. The House will observe that the Clause is one which lays down the ground upon which licences only can be refused. We are seeking to make it quite certain that no efficient curer should be refused a licence so long as the total supply of bacon for consumption in the country is at a lower figure than 11,500,000 cwts. for the year. I would remind the House that the Lane Fox Reorganisation Commission recommended in their report to the Minister that the United Kingdom supplies of bacon and ham from all sources for the present—that was at that time—should be stabilised at 10,670,000 cwts. per annum. That was subsequently revised by the Government Department, because, in making their calculations, the Commission did not take into consideration the


output of relatively small curers, and the figure was put at 10,818,000 cwts. That figure has been the basis ever since for operating the import restrictions imposed by the Government on bacon.
The first point that we wish to make is that, in fact, we have never yet had for consumption in this country, since the operation of the bacon marketing scheme, the full amount of 10,818,000 cwts. The largest 12 months' supply available, both from home and imported sources, since the scheme came into operation, was, in 1937, 10,733,000 cwts. Both by the operation of the control of licences by the Development Board and by the imposition of the bacon sales quota by the Bacon Marketing Board, the supplies available for public consumption have been kept far too low. The extent to which that has been kept low has taken no real account of the other recommendations of the Lane Fox Commission, which pointed out that there seemed to be justification for regarding the figure they put into their report as the normal annual supply at that time at the then level of population. But their recommendation should never be regarded as being for the present. Since the Lane Fox figure was based upon the total annual supply in the period from 1925 to 1930, and the population has increased by over 1,250,000 since that time, it seems to us essential that we should so revise that figure, as a guide in the administration of the scheme, as not to make for a real shortage of bacon supplies available to the people of this country.
I know that there are hon. Members who say that 10,800,000 cwts. is a substantial supply, and that looking at the figures of 15 or 20 years prior to the year 1930, it is not an unreasonably low supply. From our experience of the trade since, we have had two things—first the increase in population by over a million, and, secondly, a much larger number of persons actually employed than there were during the depression. It means that we are all the time having a fight to get enough of the right type of bacon in these circumstances at the present time. If we are to make the industry really successful we should not leave it in a situation where a substantial part of the public cannot get sufficient bacon supplies and begin to lose thereby the bacon-eating habit, but we ought to have a considerably larger supply of bacon available than

has been the case in the past. We are not being revolutionary in our proposal. We have put down a reasonable figure, and we say that you should not refuse a licence until there is in sight a supply of 11,500,000 cwts.
I should like us to make more progress with the Bill than we are doing, and therefore I will not go over the whole of the arguments that we used on Second Reading on this point and in Committee, but we do attach importance to this matter. We do not want a dislocated system, but an ordered system. We do not want an ordered system which is brought about purely by restriction. We do not think that orderly marketing means necessarily marketing for imperfect and restricted supplies. We wish to organise for plenty and not for limited supplies. We do not ask the Government to be disorderly by agreeing to something that is unlimited, but we do ask for an adjustment of the figure, and we think that the one we have suggested is reasonable.

9.56 p.m.

Mr. Leonard: I beg to second the Amendment.
I had the opportunity of moving the Amendment in Committee and I paid attention to the reply of the right hon. Gentleman on that occasion. While it is not our intention to extend the time that is being devoted to this question, I should like the Minister to deal with the point in regard to the increase of population, which was raised by my right hon. Friend. In his reply in Committee the Minister said that he had the guidance of the Market Supply Committee and the Consultative Committee on Bacon Supplies. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) used some information and suggested that the Consultative Committee on Bacon Supplies had made certain observations to the Department in past years and that they had not been acted upon. I should like to know whether attention will be paid in future to any report which the Consultative Committee makes, so far as bacon is concerned. I have a recollection of what was done with regard to reports from the Investigation Committee dealing with milk. Reports which were made by people who had no statistics to support their contention, were accepted, while the reports of those who had statistics supporting them, were rejected. Therefore, I hope the Minister will be able to assure


us that the Consultative Committee will have attention paid to its observations.

9.59 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Leonard) for the brevity with which they have moved and seconded an Amendment to which they attach considerable importance. The opposition to the Amendment is also regarded on this side of the House as of considerable importance. With regard to the first point that has been raised as to the effect upon supplies of population, it is true that since the Lane Fox Commission reported, there has been a change in the population and in the purchasing power of the population, but I think I made it clear on Second Reading that in regulating supplies in the future the regulation will be conducted so as to secure reasonable prices in the general interest, and the Government will not regard themselves as restricted to any given total of supplies. The situation in that respect will be regarded as it is at the present time, without harking back to what has been the position in the past.
The Government cannot accept the proposition which is inherent in the Amendment, that all this power of licensing, on which the scheme of rationalisation depends, is to be made conditional upon a given total of bacon supplies being available at any particular time. They take that attitude because the total bacon supplies at any given moment is not a matter over which they have any control. It would be a wrong principle for the Government to deal with this matter by reliance upon any fortuitous event over which they have no control. The fact seems to have been forgotten that although bacon production in this country has doubled since the bacon scheme came into operation, it only amounts to 25 or 30 per cent. of our total supplies. The result would be that the 11,500,000 cwts., if we put that figure in the Bill, would be made up, as to some 75 per cent., of foreign supplies. We should be jeopardising and imperilling the whole of our scheme upon the chance as to whether foreign countries were in a position to supply this amount of bacon to us.

Mr. Alexander: There has never been any difficulty about that.

Mr. Morrison: The right hon. Gentleman says there has never been any difficulty about that. I would, however, urge upon the House that it is a fallacy to believe that there is an unlimited supply of bacon in the world and that all you have to do is to turn on the tap, and the bacon comes like water out of a pipe. In the operation of the pig cycle, when feeding stuffs rise, down goes the pig population at home and abroad. Only last year the population of pigs in Denmark declined by 15 per cent. and in Holland by 16 per cent. Supposing there were some reduction in foreign countries and for some reason we could not get the bacon from abroad, is it to be said that we are to hold up all our efforts to improve and rationalise our position, because we cannot get foreign supplies to make up a stipulated quantity?

Mr. Alexander: We do not ask you to do that. We say that you should not refuse licences for home production of bacon, unless you have that amount of bacon. We are encouraging you to issue licences for home production.

Mr. Morrison: The right hon. Gentleman and the House must realise that the power to issue licences is the sanction for rationalisation of an efficient curing industry. Without this power no progress whatever can be made with rationalisation. I would ask the House not to make a power which is vital to the whole of this scheme dependent and contingent upon a certain given level of supplies that may not be available owing to circumstances over which we have no control.

Mr. Alexander: If we withdraw the Amendment, will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that the notional figure on which his Department has worked in regard to the regulation of supplies, in view of the increase in population and the increase of employment, be raised to 11,500,000 cwts., instead of the figure in the Lane Fox report?

Mr. Morrison: With the best will in the world I could not nominate a figure of that sort. The wisest course is that now we have entered upon a new chapter in the bacon industry we should view the circumstances at the particular time, and be guided by them. The supporters of the Amendment are basing the whole of their argument on the changes that have taken place since the Lane Fox Commission nominated a particular figure. It


may have been unwise to nominate that figure and it would be equally unwise for us to nominate a particular figure now as the figure upon which the whole of our rationalisation must depend. It is a question for the future and not a question for the past, and for that reason I would ask the House not to accept the Amendment. I do not want to traverse the argument that bacon has been short in supply; I do not agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has said on that point, but I do not pursue it at the moment. I cannot recommend the House to accept the Amendment. I think that the proper

view of this matter is to do what we can to improve our own supplies. Shortage of bacon is not the object of the Bill. The object of the Bill is to increase the amount of British bacon, at a cheap price by measures of greater efficiency and encouragement to our own people. That is, I think, an object with which the House will readily agree. For these reasons I cannot ask the House to accept the Amendment.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 128; Noes, 208.

Division No. 261.]
AYES.
[10.6 p.m.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Hardie, Agnes
Parkinson, J. A.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Harris, Sir P. A.
Pearson, A.


Adamson, W. M.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Hayday, A.
Price, M. P.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Pritt, D. N.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Banfield, J. W.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Barnes, A. J.
Holdsworth, H.
Ridley, G


Batey, J.
Hopkin, D.
Riley, B.


Bellenger, F. J.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Ritson, J.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Benson, G.
John, W.
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)


Broad, F. A.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Bromfield, W.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Saxton, T. M.


Buchanan, G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Silkin, L.


Burke, W. A.
Kelly, W. T.
Simpson, F. B.


Cassells, T.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Chater, D.
Kirby, B. V.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cluse, W. S.
Kirkwood, D.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Cooks, F. S.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Sorensen, R. W.


Collindridge, F.
Lawson, J. J.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Cove, W. G.
Leach, W.
Stokes, R. R.


Daggar, G.
Leonard, W.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Dalton, H.
Leslie, J. R.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Logan, D. G.
Thurtle, E.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lunn, W.
Tinker, J. J.


Day, H.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Tomlinson, G.


Dobbie, W.
McEntee, V. La T.
Viant, S. P.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
McGhee, H. G.
Walker, J.


Ede, J. C.
McGovern, J.
Watkins, F. C.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
MacLaren, A.
Watson, W. McL.


Foot, D. M.
Maclean, N.
Welsh, J. C.


Gallagher, W.
Marshall, F.
Westwood, J.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Mathers, G.
White, H. Graham


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Maxton, J.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Messer, F.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Milner, Major J.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Grenfell, D. R.
Montague, F.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Muff, G.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Naylor, T. E.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Griffiths, J. (Llanolly)
Oliver, G. H.



Groves, T. E.
Owen, Major G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Paling, W.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Charleton.


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Parker, J.





NOES.


Asland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Beechman, N. A.
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Beit, Sir A. L.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Birchall, Sir J. D.
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)


Albery, Sir Irving
Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Christie, J. A.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Boyce, H. Leslie
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Clarry, Sir Reginald


Aske, Sir R. W.
Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)


Assheton, R.
Bull, B. B.
Colfax, Major W. P.


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Burghley, Lord
Celman, N. C. D.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Butcher, H. W.
Conant, Captain R. J. E.


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Campbell, Sir E. T.
Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Cary, R. A.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)




Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)
Hunter, T.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Hutchinson, G. C.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)


Cranborne, Viscount
Joel, D. J. B.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Remer, J. R.


Crooke, Sir J. Smedley
Keeling, E. H.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Groom-Johnson, R. P.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Cruddas, Col. B.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Rowlands, G.


Culverwell, C. T.
Latham, Sir P.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Leech, Sir J. W.
Russell, Sir Alexander


De la Bère, R.
Lees-Jones, J.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Doland, G. F.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Donner, P. W.
Levy, T.
Selley, H. R.


Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.
Liddall, W. S.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Dower, Major A. V. G.
Lindsay, K. M.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Drewe, C.
Lipson, D. L.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Little, Sir E. Graham.
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st)


Dunglass, Lord.
Lloyd, G. W.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Eastwood, J. F.
Locker-Lampoon, Cemdr. O. S.
Somerset, T.


Eckersley, P. T.
Loftus, P. C.
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Ellis, Sir G.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Elliston, Capt. G. S.
McCorquedale, M. S.
Spens, W. P.


Elmley, Viscount
McKie, J. H.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Macnamara, Major J. R. J.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W m'ld)


Errington, E.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Everard, W. L.
Markham, S. F.
Tate, Mavis C.


Fildes, Sir H.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Furness, S. N.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Thomas, J. P. L.


Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)
Mitcheson, Sir G. G.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Gledhill, G.
Moore, Lieut.-Col Sir T. C. R.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.


Gluckstein, L. H.
Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.
Turton, R. H.


Grant-Ferris, R.
Moreing, A. C.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Morgan, R. H.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Warrender, Sir V.


Grimston, R. V.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Munro, P.
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Wayland, Sir W. A


Hambro, A. V.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Wells, Sir Sydney


Harbord, A.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Perkins, W. R. D.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Petherick, M.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Hepbu[...], P. G. T. Buchan
Pilkington, R.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Hepworth, J.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Wise, A. R.


Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Porritt, R. W.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Herbert, Capt. Sir S. (Abbey)
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Higgs, W. F.
Procter, Major H. A.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Radford, E. A.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Holmes, J. S.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.



Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Ramsbotham, H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hopkinson, A.
Ramsden, Sir E.
Lieut.-Colonel Kerr and Captain


Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon, L.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Dugdale.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Rayner, Major R. H.

CLAUSE 13.—(Variation of conditions.)

10.16 p.m.

Mr. Ramsbotham: I beg to move, in page 17, line 22, to leave out "of any specified class in the manner specified in the scheme," and to insert:
in the manner specified in the scheme in the case of such classes of premises as may be so specified.
This Amendment is very little more than a drafting Amendment. It might be held under the Bill as it stands that a factory rationalisation scheme could contain particulars for the variation of producers' licences in respect only of the classes already in existence, and that the scheme could not itself state what the classes were to be. The intention of the Bill, of

course, is that a rationalisation scheme shall lay down the classes of premises to which the proposals for varying the licence conditions relate. The Amendment makes the condition clear.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 16.—(Prohibition of certain transactions by unregistered producers and curers.)

10.17 p.m.

Mr. Leonard: I beg to move, in page 19, line 6, to leave out from the second "the," to the end of the Sub-section, and to insert:
Development Board to enforce the pro. visions of this Section.


I direct the attention of the House to Sub-section (3) of this Clause, which provides that any producer or curer who breaks the restrictions imposed in this Clause shall be liable to a penalty of from£5 to £200, and an additional fine not exceeding half the price at which the pigs or bacon were sold. The House will recognise that there is a very large field within which the penalty can be imposed, and for that reason I think it is desirable to give the power of imposing these penalties to a body which may be expected to be impartial. Consequently, the Amendment seeks to substitute for the Pigs Marketing Board and the Bacon Marketing Board, the Development Board, as having the power to impose these penalties. I do not know what is the number of small curers in the country, or the number of cottagers and smallholders who would be concerned, but there can be no doubt that the number in each case is pretty large, and that the two classes come into contact in business in the fresh pork market. It is possible that misunderstandings might arise and that, through no ill intention, pigs bought on the fresh pork market from cottagers or smallholders might be used by small curers for the production of bacon. If that should happen, I feel that it would be ill advised of the House to allow the penalty to be applied by either of the boards mentioned in the Clause. I suggest that the penalty should be imposed by the Development Board, because of the impartiality with which they would be able to look upon such misdemeanours.

Mr. Adamson: I beg to second the Amendment.

10.20 p.m.

Mr. Ramsbotham: An Amendment similar to this was discussed in Committee when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) suggested that this matter had better be left to the Development Board and my right hon. Friend promised to think over that suggestion. I propose to put certain considerations before the House for the purpose of resisting the Amendment. The offence would be that of selling pigs or bacon without being registered under, or exempt from the appropriate marketing scheme, and it is thought proper that the actual enforcement of a penalty should be with the Marketing Board concerned and not with the Development Board.

Incidentally a large number of small curers would be exempt. In the first place, such a procedure as I have indicated would be in accord with the principles of the Agricultural Marketing Acts on which the Bill is founded. Secondly, this function is purely administrative, and broadly speaking, the Development Board will be concerned mainly with questions of policy and not of administration. These penalties, of course, I would remind hon. Members, are imposed by the courts, and not by the boards. It may help to reassure the hon. Member who moved this Amendment if I remind him that the Marketing Boards are not permitted to take independent action. The Development Board, under Clause 2 have an overriding power, and if the Marketing Board abused their powers of administration, if they were on the one hand too lax, or on the other hand too severe, then they would, as it were, come within the clutches of the Development Board and would be directed what to do. I do not think that any of the dangers anticipated by the hon. Member could possibly arise.

Mr. Leonard: How can the Development Board come in after the Marketing Board has sent the man to court?

Mr. Ede: That is too hard a question.

10.23 p.m.

Mr. Alexander: We are not very well satisfied with the Minister's reply. I had hoped for a more conciliatory answer, but my hon. Friend has not got much satisfaction. It is true that the Marketing Boards do not themselves impose penalties but they are responsible for the enforcement of the decisions of the Development Board. If, as the Minister says, the Development Board give directions, they are the people who take a poor person into court and provide the case against him. The Development Board is the only impartial part of this machinery, We ask that that impartial part of the machinery, under the direction of which the Minister says these other boards will work, should be the enforcing authority in taking a delinquent to court. That is a reasonable request, and I cannot see why the Government should be fumbling with it and objecting to it. Unless we get a better argument in reply, I shall have to ask my hon. Friends to divide on this Amendment, though I was hoping that we might have been spared that delay.

10.25 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The right hon. Gentleman's wish that we should be spared delay will be warmly echoed in all parts of the House. The real point here concerns the general scope of the Bill wherein we are setting up a body known as the Development Board with wide functions to prepare policy and make decisions on question of policy. We are making use of these Marketing Boards now in existence to carry on the administration. This question is clearly a matter of administration and not of policy at all. We think this day-to-day machine business should be a question for the Marketing Boards, and I think it would he a breach in the general structure of the scheme if we were to ask the Development Board to come in here.

Mr. Leonard: The Minister has indicated that the prosecution would be made by the Marketing Board under the direction of the Development Board. Can he tell us how the Development Board comes into a case that has already been submitted to court?

Mr. Morrison: What my hon. Friend meant was that, unless the contrary is stated in the Bill, the Marketing Boards act under the directions of the Development Board. That is the general position, but in this particular case, if an offence under this Clause was committed, it would be a matter for the Marketing Board to deal with its own constituents, and it is better that it should do so, because it would have the information, in the first place, and it is a quicker and more reasonable piece of machinery that the board that is in day-to-day touch with the administration should take proceedings for any violation of the Act.

Mr. T. Williams: I suppose we can take it that, assuming any of the major functions of the Pigs Marketing Board or the Bacon Marketing Board were transferred to the Development Board under Clause 2, the Development Board would be the body to introduce proceedings in case of a default?

Mr. Morrison: Certainly. If that were to happen and the Development Board were to remain the sole authority for the enforcement of the Act, it would be the only appropriate body to institute proceedings; but while the Marketing Boards are in existence, we think it is best to

let them proceed with cases that are under their administration.

10.29 p.m.

Mr. Woods: The replies given now are substantially different from that given in Committee upstairs, and I think the case for the Development Board has been strengthened by the replies given. I would like to ask the position with regard to a number of cases which must arise where collusion may be suspected or where there is difficulty in deciding who is really responsible for any infringement, when both buyers, who are the curers, and sellers, who are the producers, of the pigs are involved. There you will have a quartette—both boards involved and a couple of defendants, possibly. Both boards will be involved in a number of cases, and that is an argument why the responsibility should be transferred to the Development Board.

10.30p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: Sub-section (4) says that it shall be the duty of the respective boards to enforce the provisions of the Clause in regard to producers and curers as the case may be. That does not mean that one board may always appear as the prosecutor. In such a case as the hon. Member has envisaged, when both curer and producer are involved, it might be a matter of arrangement for the prosecution to be instituted by one body or the other if it is one transaction.

Amendment negatived.

10.31 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 19, line To, at the end, to insert:
but nothing in this Sub-section shall be construed as authorising either of the said boards to institute proceedings in Scotland for any offence against the said provisions.
This Amendment looks as if it were giving carte blanche for offences to be committed in Scotland, but it is nothing of the kind. Private prosecutions are unknown to the law of Scotland, and the only person who can set in motion the machinery of a prosecution is the Lord Advocate or the Procurator Fiscal. These words should be inserted to make it clear that the law of Scotland is not infringed.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 18.—(Power of Development Board to grant exemptions from the long contract system.)

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 20, line 8, to leave out from the


beginning to the second "and," in line 14.
This Amendment and the one which follows are purely drafting in character and effect the transposition of substantially the same language from one part of the Clause to another.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 20, line 19, at the end, insert:
(2) Any such exemption may be absolute or conditional and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions of this Section, may he made conditional on a permit being obtained from a Marketing Board or on the sale or purchase in question being made at, below or above a price, and on terms, specified in the determination or by a Marketing Board acting under and in accordance therewith."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

CLAUSE 19.—(General exemptions.)

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 21, line 10, after "manner," to insert, "or from any person."
This is to make it clear that the curer can purchase store pigs from any person in any manner.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 22, line 26, after "premises," to insert, "in Great Britain."
This Amendment is to make it clear that the pigs to which reference is made are those produced in Great Britain.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 20.—(Long contracts to be made in a prescribed form and through the Pigs Marketing Board.)

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 22, line 29, to leave out "provisions of this and the next succeeding section," and to insert "following provisions of this Part of this Act."
This Amendment is consequential on the new Clause which the House has ordered to be incorporated in the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 22, line 40, leave out "a form" and insert "forms."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 23, line 8, to leave out from beginning, to the end of the Clause, and insert:
(2) Contracts in a form so determined, made through the Pigs Marketing Board in accordance with the subsequent provisions of this Part of this Act, are in this Act referred to as 'long contracts'.

This Amendment is consequential upon the new Clause which has the marginal heading:
Requirements as to manner of exercise of power to determine form of long contracts.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 21.—(Procedure for determining form of long contracts.)

Amendments made:

In page 25, line 41, leave out "a form," and insert "forms."

In page 26, line 25, leave out "form of contract has," and insert "forms of contract have."

In line 28, leave out "form," and insert "forms."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.

10.36 p.m.

Mr. Ramsbotham: I beg to move, in page 26, line 40, to leave out "by or on behalf of the purchaser."
The Bacon Marketing Board and the Pigs Marketing Board both have power under Clauses 41 and 43 respectively to regulate the transport of pigs by or on behalf of their respective registered purchasers. The view is taken, rightly, that in matters which may affect outside interests, those of transport and insurance, it is desirable that the actions of these boards should be subject to the directions of the Development Board, and one of the objects of Sub-section (5) of this Clause is to secure that except with the consent of the Development Board
no provision shall be included in any form of contract which would require pigs sold thereunder to be transported or insured by or on behalf of the purchaser in a particular manner or on particular terms.
As the Bill stands there might be some difficulty over the interpretation of that Sub-section. The woi4ds which I am moving to omit might be held, by implication, to permit these marketing boards to act independently in regulating the transport and insurance of pigs on behalf of pig producers. That is not the intention of the Sub-section.

10.38 p.m.

Mr. Alexander: I very much object to this Amendment. The Minister of Pensions has put the matter very nicely, but there is no doubt as to what is the intention. In the first place it is quite unreasonable that such an important question as the compulsion which may be brought upon individual units in the scheme to accept either monopoly trans-


port or monopoly insurance arrangements should be independent of the Development Board, and I see something quite sinister about the methods of the Ministry in dealing with this matter having regard to the history of these transport and insurance questions in the past. We have always been against the Ministry's policy and this change will make it even more difficult for the matter to be dealt with afterwards. I cannot understand why this matter was not brought up in Committee. I should like to read the Sub-section:
Except with the consent of the Development Board no provision shall be included in any form of contract which would require pigs sold thereunder to be transported or insured by or on behalf of the purchaser in a particular manner or on particular terms, but save as aforesaid and save as otherwise expressly provided in this section.
There is no earthly reason why you should leave out the words which refer to the purchaser and which were a saving for the purchaser, in the Clause as it originally stood, and unless there is some better explanation of this Amendment than we have had from the Minister of Pensions I shall certainly ask my hon. Friends to divide against it.

10.41 p.m.

Mr. Ramsbotham: I am very much surprised at the right hon. Gentleman's speech.

Mr. Alexander: I knew you would be.

Mr. Ramsbotham: I thought he would have agreed that these words should be left out. On various occasions during our discussions he has expressed his confidence in the Development Board and his wish to give the Development Board the maximum amount of power. If these words were not left out it might be thought by implication that the Pigs Marketing Board could act independently of the Development Board in arranging for transport, and I am more than surprised to find that the right hon. Gentleman desires in the case of transport contracts that the Pigs Marketing Board should be independent of the Development Board and be able to make what terms it likes without the consent of and irrespective of any arrangement made by the Development Board. That would be the possible result of leaving in the words. In order to make certain that the Pigs Marketing Board should not act inde-

pendently of the Development Board in regard to transport contracts, these words should be taken out. I can only believe that the fault is mine in my explanation.

10.43 p.m.

Mr. Alexander: I said that unless I got a better explanation I should have to divide the House. If the Minister will refer to the OFFICIAL REPORT he will find —unless, of course, he revises his speech to-night—that he said exactly the opposite when he moved the Amendment to what he has just said. He said that the object of leaving out the words was to prevent these things being under the control of the Development Board.

Mr. Ramsbotham: indicated dissent.

Mr. Alexander: Oh, yes, I specifically put that point to the House, but if the Minister says that the object of the Amendment is to see that this operates under the control of the Development Board, I shall not divide the House.

Mr. Ramsbotham: The important thing is that I should get it right now, and if the right hon. Gentleman understands that that is so, I hope that he will not divide the House on the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 27, line 1, leave out "in determining the form," and insert "as respects the determination of the forms."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

CLAUSE 22.—(Safeguards for producers and curers as respects long contracts.)

10.45 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 27, line 3, to leave out from "determination," to "with," in line 5, and to insert "of the forms of long contract has been made."
This Amendment is consequential upon the second new Clause which was agreed to by the House this afternoon.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 23.—(Special provisions with respect to the first three contract periods.)

Amendments made:

In page 28, line 13, leave out "The," and insert "Each."

In line 17, after "Act," insert "to the addition of any allocation premium."

In line 38, leave out paragraph (i).—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

10.46 p.m.

Colonel Clarke: I beg to move, in page 29, line 16, to leave out "of the Minister," and to insert
made by the Minister after consultation with the Development Board.
In reply to a request made during the Committee stage by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), the Minister promised to consider this Amendment on Report, and a little later in the same Debate, on consideration of a further Amendment in my name, the Minister asked me not to press for too strict a definition of the standard pig,
but to leave it to the common sense of those who have to administer the Act to prescribe, in consultation with the Development Board, the Pigs Marketing Board and the Bacon Marketing Board…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee C), 24th May, 1938, col. 265.]
I venture to suggest that this Amendment really describes what is the declared intention of the Minister in this connection, and I think there is no need to stress the importance of the definition of the standard pig. The whole working of the scheme, and its success or failure, depend up on it. Irregular grading in the past has led to dissatisfaction, and regularity of grading must depend on the definition of the grade. Any dissatisfaction with grading is bound to prejudice the supply of pigs. There has also been some doubt in the past whether the method of grading practised has really been calculated to produce the best sort of bacon. I would again emphasise that the definition of a standard pig is of vital importance.
The future of the pig breeding industry depends very largely on this definition. If, through some mistake, too great emphasis were laid on such factors as fecundity and production of meat, while other factors, such as those which contribute to the rearing of pigs, were neglected, we might see the same disaster overwhelm our pig stock as has overwhelmed our poultry stock. I know that it might perhaps be better if the Development Board came to consult the Minister, but even then the invitation would have to come in the first place from him, and I do not think there is very much difference between the two alternatives. I do not suggest that the task of defining a standard pig is beyond the Minister's

capability, but I believe that the acceptance of this Amendment, besides making no real difference to his declared intention, would relieve him to some extent from the burden of being responsible, at any rate on paper, for the specification. I think it would also please those in the country who are always looking for examples of over-centralisation and two great bureaucratic control. Moreover, it would make the producer feel that he has some little say in this matter through the elected members representing the Bacon Board and the Pigs Marketing Board who sit on the Development Board. Finally, I know it might be said that this is a precedent, but if it is a good precedent does that not matter very much?

10.50 p.m.

Sir J. Lamb: I beg to second the Amendment.
This is a matter of very great importance indeed to the pig breeders and the pig producers. The question of what is the standard pig has caused a great deal of trouble and a great deal of loss to certain people, because the standard pig may really be two standards instead of one. At present the London standard is a very much smaller pig, but in the Midlands there is a demand for a larger pig. The larger pig has been forced, because of the heavier weight, into the lower grade, and one for which the producer has been paid a lower rate, although the butcher and bacon curer in that area required a larger pig and were willing to pay the higher price, and really considered that a larger pig was the one which suited the demand for bacon in that particular area. This is a matter of such importance that I believe the decision should not be left to the Minister alone. It should be settled in consultation with the Development Board. The Development Board will consist of men who, we hope and believe, will be qualified to deal with this matter in a businesslike way and the Minister should have their advice. Unless he has, he may decide upon a standard pig which is not suitable, and the Development Board will he able to help him because they are in constant touch with the demands of the trade. I believe the Minister would find that it would be to his advantage if he were to accept this Amendment.

10.52 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: It is true that I promised to consider this point when it was first suggested in Committee. I made that promise because I could see nothing against the Amendment. It is obvious that any Minister engaged on the great enterprise of providing by regulations for the standard pig would desire to avail himself of any assistance he could get, and the Development Board would be an admirable body to consult. The only reason why I ask my hon. Friends not to press this Amendment is not because I have any objection to consulting with the Development Board, but because I do not want words to be put into the Statute which might by implication mean that I had no right to consult anybody else. For instance, it might be equally desirable for the Minister to consult the Pigs Marketing Board on a matter of this importance to producers, as well as the Development Board. It might also be desirable to go in search of such information as the Minister could get from pig breeding societies and various other bodies, so as to throw the door as wide open as possible to knowledge flowing in upon this very important matter. But I can give an unlimited assurance that in framing these regulations the Minister will consult the Development Board, and indeed the Development Board are bound to advise him on such a matter. It is only a question of precedent, and of the fear that because one body is named it may be thought that the Minister is tied up to it and may not go farther afield in search of knowledge.
There is one other consideration. Frequently attempts are made in Acts of Parliament to say that Ministers should consult bodies of various sorts. It it a very harmless thing in this case to say that the Minister should consult the Development Board, but as a precedent it is not desirable. The Minister is responsible to Parliament and there is always a feeling that if he consults other people they are parties to the frequent mistakes of the Minister of Agriculture. I would ask my hon. and gallant Friend not to press the Amendment, with the purpose of which I agree and which I guarantee will be carried out.

Colonel Clarke: I am very grateful to the Minister for the further consideration he has given the Amendment, and I

appreciate the assurance he has given. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 25.—(Payments to and by curers by and to Exchequer.)

Amendment made: in page 31, line 7, leave out "the," and insert "those."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

10.57 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 32, line 36, after "Wiltshire," to insert "style."
This is a drafting Amendment, to meet a point raised in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) who pointed out that "Wiltshire" might be taken to mean bacon produced in Wiltshire, whereas what is meant is a particular style.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 26.—(Quotas for bacon.)

10.58 p.m.

Mr. Turton: I beg to move, in page 33, line 7, to leave out "Bacon Marketing," and to insert "Development."
At present the power to quote factories is left in the hands of the Bacon Marketing Board, although they are to act under directions given by the Development Board. I suggested on the Committee stage that that should be in the hands of the Development Board, and not the Bacon Marketing Board, because the whole question of the quota of factories is one which affects not merely the interests of the curer but the interests of the producer. The effect of giving the Bacon Marketing Board power to quota factories, we found under the old scheme, was that when a factory had got its original quota from the Bacon Development Board it sometimes had that quota cut down drastically by the Bacon Marketing Board. I will recall what happened to the Yorkshire factory two or three years ago, when it went to the Development Board and got a quota of 150,000 pigs a year, and that was cut down by the Marketing Board to the ludicrous figure of 50,000—less than 30 per cent. That sort of behaviour is not in the interest of the pig and bacon industry as a whole. You must have one policy carried out by one body. Under Clause 9 we give the Development Board power to fix the maximum amount cured in any factory, and the logical conclusion


from that is that the Development Board and not the Bacon Marketing Board, should have the power to fix these quotas.

Colonel Ponsonby: I beg to Second the Amendment.

11 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) will not expect me at this stage of the evening to go into the actual specific cases he mentioned with regard to the Yorkshire factory. There is another reason besides the lateness of the evening why I do not enter upon that matter, and it is perhaps an even better reason, that I am quite ignorant of the facts of the case myself. He must not argue from his experience of the past as to what is to happen under the new organisation. The Bacon Marketing Board is coming now under the direction of the Development Board, a point which he was able to concede at the opening of his argument. That makes for a different state of affairs from that of which he complained this evening. He said that in that case he had a better offer from the Development Board than from the Bacon Board, but now the Bacon Board will be coming under the direction of this relatively more generous body, and consequently he can rest assured that the position will be now as he wants it. I can only say that it has been the desire of the Government in framing this new structure that matters of policy should be for the Development Board and matters of administration for the Marketing Boards. The policy of quota allocation is for the Development Board, but the administration for the Bacon Marketing Board.
I would point out a very relevant consideration, and one which certainly appeals to me strongly, and that is the consideration of economy. If you are going to ask the Development Board to carry out this duty, they will have to duplicate their staff in order to carry out the work the Bacon Board could carry out without additional expenditure and duplication. of staff. When one remembers that the expenses of these boards are borne by the industry, this House should be careful not to vote any measures to make the expenses of administration more than they need be. I hope that my hon. Friends will accept the assurance that, in bringing the Bacon Board under the

direction of the Development Board, matters of which they complained in the past will not arise, and that in the interests of economy and efficiency they will leave the matter where it is.

Mr. Turton: In view of the argument on the ground of economy, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Leonard: I wish to move an Amendment, in page 33, line 26, to leave out "Bacon Marketing," and to insert "Development." On the last occasion that I intervened it was to deal with the question of penalties, and this Amendment deals with a similar aspect of the matter. On that occasion I dealt with circumstances under which we took matters before the court for penalties to be imposed. The Amendment on this occasion does not do that. The Subsection which I propose to amend states specifically:
If any registered curer produces or sells any bacon in contravention of any determination of the Bacon Marketing Board under this Section, that board shall by resolution impose upon, and shall recover from, him a monetary penalty not exceeding one hundred pounds or five pounds for each hundredweight of bacon so produced or sold, whichever is the larger.
The intention of the Amendment is that it shall be a penalty imposed by an independent body. It must be within the recollection of many Members of the House that this has caused considerable difficulty already in marketing schemes functioning that that they should appear to impose penalties. The Government themselves have seen fit to institute a special committee of investigation, and, therefore—

Mr. Turton: On a point of Order. Is not this Amendment consequential upon my Amendment, and, therefore, as my Amendment has been withdrawn, it must be out of order to suggest an Amendment of this kind.

Mr. Leonard: Is it not the case that the Amendment which has already been withdrawn dealt with quotas only, and that this deals with penalties?

Mr. Speaker: I thought that the hon. Member's Amendment was consequential.

Mr. Leonard: My impression was that the first part dealt with the power to modify, and that the difference arose between two bodies dealing with the same quota.

Mr. H. G. Williams: The hon. Member suggests that the word "Board" in line 27 should have the word "Development" put in front of it.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The hon. Member had put his name to the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), and this Amendment would be perfectly proper as a consequential Amendment to that, but in the absence of the words of the previous Amendment, which has been withdrawn, there would be no determination by the Development Board.

Mr. Leonard: After that explanation I beg pardon for trespassing upon the time of the House.

CLAUSE 28.—(Application of Part IV of this Act to curers who produce pigs.)

11.8 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 35, line 5, to leave out "intimate," and to insert "declare."
This Amendment is consequential upon a similar change in a new Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 35, line 11, leave out from beginning, to "include," in line 13, and insert:
(2) The right which a producer of pigs has to nominate a curer as the person to whom he desires any of his pigs to be sold shall, where that producer is such a curer as is mentioned in Sub-section (1) of this Section.
In line 23, leave out from the second "to," to "another," in line 24, and insert:
a declaration by the curer that he desired the pigs in question to be sold to.
In line 32, leave out from "right," to the end of the Sub-section, and insert:
the contract shall be made in the transferred pig (producer-curers) variant of the form of contract."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 36, line 13, to leave out from the beginning, to "a," in line 16, and to insert:
(5) For the purposes of any provision of this Act imposing a limit on the total quantity of pigs, or of pigs of any description,' which may be contracted to be delivered in a contract period under long contracts.
This Amendment and the one which follows it are largely drafting. Clause 23 (4) provides for the total number of

pigs to be contracted for in each of the three years during which the subsidy may be paid. Subsidies may not be paid on contract pigs in excess of these maximum figures. Under Sub-section (7) of the new Clause the Marketing Board must exercise its powers of making contracts so as to secure that the total quantity of pigs contracted to be delivered does not exceed such quantity as the Development Board may direct. The first Amendment makes the provision in the words which I have proposed, and the following Amendment is consequential upon that provision.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 36, line 20, leave out "the said Sub-section," and insert "Subsection (4) of Section twenty-three of this Act."

In line 24, leave out "and (b)," and insert "(6)."

In line 33, after "premises," insert "in Great Britain."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

CLAUSE 31.—(Grading and marking of carcases.)

11.11 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 41, to leave out lines 22 to 26.
This Amendment, and the next, is a little more than a drafting Amendment. It deals with the offences which are to be penalised. The production of an agricultural product as opposed to its sale cannot be an offence against an agricultural marketing scheme, and cannot therefore be the subject of a penalty imposed by an agricultural marketing board. It may happen, also, that the offence is committed by a person who is not registered with the Bacon Marketing Board, and therefore not within the jurisdiction of the board. The new provision gets over this difficulty and enables the Bill to be enforced not only against members who are registered but against anyone who contravenes its provisions.

11.13 p.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams: I understand that the object of the Amendment is to take away from the board the powers of a court of justice. With that I agree. But under the words which it is proposed to leave out there is a monetary penalty only for the grave offence of producing something. By the proposed change the


monetary penalty is reduced but there is introduced the possibility of imprisonment as an alternative, and honestly I am a little surprised that the public of this country has not become indignant that if a man's sole offence is that he has produced bacon he is to be sent to prison. I really think that we ought to consider these words with some care. I do not like this kind of legislation. I hate the whole of these marketing boards. I have no use for them at all. I do not think we should set up this penalty of going to prison merely because a man has done a useful thing in increasing the food of this country.

11.14 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: It is not a question of fining anyone or sending him to prison for producing something, but for producing something in contravention of this Clause, and if he will look at the provisions the hon. Member will see that it makes provision for the marking of carcases so that people shall know where they are in regard to what is being produced. There is the possibility of falsifying a mark in contravention of an order. It is not a question of an offence for producing something.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Turton: I agree with what the Minister has said, but I do not understand why, in the interval between the Committee stage and the Report stage, he has come to think so much less of this offence that he wants to reduce the penalty from £250 to £20. I hope that he will reconsider this matter, and consider whether, in another place, the penalty should not be made more than £20. I do not think any of us want to see offenders sent to prison for this offence, but I think they should be fined a larger sum. Probably they are men who could afford to pay a large fine and to whom £20 would not be much. Therefore, I hope that in another place the fine will be increased.

11.16 p.m.

Mr. Alexander: I hope that the Minister will not reconsider this matter, because I think it would be an objectionable course for the House, which represents the people, to leave it to another place to increase penalties. If the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) wishes the penalty to be increased, why does he not move a manuscript Amendment? I

should very much object to the House handing over to another place the increasing of penalties against people whom we represent. I hope the Minister will give no such undertaking. I thought that I saw him nod his head affirmatively to the hon. Member.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I meant that I would consider the matter.

Mr. Alexander: I ask the Minister for an assurance that the penalty will not be increased, unless it is done in this House.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: If any Amendment were made in another place, it would have no effect unless this House agreed to it.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made:

In page 41, line 27, at the end, insert:
(a) knowingly causes or permits any bacon to be produced in contravention of this Section or."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

11.17 p.m.

Mr. Ramsbotham: I beg to move, in page 42, line 12, at the end, to insert:
(6) The Development Board may pay to the Pigs Marketing Board such sums, if any, as it thinks fit towards the expenses of the Pigs Marketing Board under this Section.
This Amendment deals with the Development Board and the Pigs Marketing Board. The Pigs Marketing Board feels, I think reasonably, that it ought not to be required to pay the whole cost of marking imported carcases, such carcases not being subject to the payment of any levies to that board. The Amendment, by enabling the Development Board to make a grant for that service, would meet the definite complaint of the Pigs Marketing Board.

11.18 p.m.

Mr. Alexander: Will the Minister tell us from where the Development Board's funds come? The expenses of the Pigs Marketing Board are to be subsidised by the Development Board. I suppose that power is being taken in the Bill for levies to be made for the Development Board. Is this another move to put a little more of the general expenses on the bacon curers and less upon the producers?

Mr. Turton: It comes under Clause 35.

Mr. Alexander: I do not think so. This Amendment places some of the cost on the Development Board, and I want to


know where the Development Board is going to get its funds from.

Mr. Ramsbotham: I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) has overlooked Clause 35, Sub-section (1), which states:
There shall be paid to the Development Board—

(a) by every registered producer of pigs who delivers pigs to a registered curer under a long contract;
(b) by every registered curer who causes to be graded and marked…"

That is the Clause under which the contributions are procured.

Mr. Alexander: That is what I thought. The Development Board has funds which come from two sources, a levy on the curers and a levy on the pig producers, and the Pigs Marketing Board has its own separate system of levies on the pig producers. This is another clever little move for getting part of the expenses of the Pigs Marketing Board met out of the joint fund of the Development Board. It is another small extra charge in the long run upon the curer for the special benefit of the poor pig producers, who do not get anything according to some people. I draw the attention of the House to this process which is going on.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 32.—(Power of boards to enter premises.)

Amendment made: In page 43, line 1, leave out "land or."—[Mr. Ramsbotham.]

CLAUSE 33.—(Power of boards to obtain information.)

11.20 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 43, line 18, to leave out from "information," to the end of line 23, and to insert:
as may be specified in the demand, being estimates, returns and information relating, in the case of a registered producer of pigs, to the purchase, ownership, production, sale or disposal of any pigs, and, in the case of a registered curer or the holder of a producer's licence, to the purchase, ownership, sale or disposal of any pigs, carcases, parts of carcases, or other products of the slaughtering of pigs, or to the ownership, production, sale or disposal of any bacon.
This is largely an endeavour to improve the drafting, but there is one change of

some substance involved. In the paragraph as printed in the Bill it is not clear that the Development Board has the right to ask the occupier of premises to whom bacon found there belongs and it is thought necessary that such a power should exist. The drafting of the last lines of the Amendment makes it clear that the information that can be demanded is not in regard to pork pies and such commodities, but pigs, carcases and parts of carcases and other products of the slaughtering of pigs. We have now used words which put bacon in a category by itself, and while it might be held that a pork pie was something like bacon it could not be held that it was a pig carcase or part of a carcase.

Mr. McCorquodale: I think some protest should be made against the Minister's statement that he considers it an improvement in drafting to put in such a monstrous sentence.

Mr. Morrison: I said I thought it an improvement in the drafting not in the literary style, or the grammar, or the poetry, of the Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

11.23 p.m.

Mr. Ramsbotham: I beg to move, in page 43, line 30, to leave out from "shall," to "requests," in line 31, and to insert:
not be entitled to disclose to the board any information other than information which the board could have required under paragraph (a) of this Sub-section, and shall, if the person on whom the demand is made so.
This and the two following Amendments go together. As the Clause stands, the inspection of books is to be made, unless the person on whom the demand is made otherwise requests, by a professional accountant not in the service of the Development Board. The cost of the professional accountant's services would have to be borne by the pig producer or the curer as the case may be. It is thought that the producer might not fully appreciate the fact that unless he gave notice to the Development Board the inspection would be made by an accountant and he would have to pay the accountant's fees. Therefore, for the protection of the producer, it is proposed to turn the Clause round and make it provide that the in-


spection will be carried out by an officer of the board unless the person on whom the demand is made requests that it should be carried out by a professional accountant. If that request is made he will presumably be aware that he has to pay the fee.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 43, line 33, leave out "no such," and insert "such a."

Leave out lines 34 to 38.—[Mr. Ramsbotham.]

11.25 p.m.

Mr. Ramsbotham: I beg to move, in page 44, line 26, to leave out "require," and to insert "request."

This is little more than a drafting Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Ramsbotham: I beg to move, in page 44, line 29, after "periods," to insert:
or for any purpose connected with the making of orders under Section one or Section two of the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1933 (which sections relate to the regulation of importation of agricultural products and of sales of home-produced agricultural products).
This Amendment is to enable the Minister to obtain from the Development Board and the Marketing Board, and to pass on to the Board of Trade, information which the Board of Trade may require for purposes connected with the quantitative regulation of bacon imports.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 35.—(Contributions to Expenses of Development Board.)

11.26 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: I beg to move, in page 45, line 32, at the end, to insert:
so however that except with the consent of the Minister (to be embodied in an order made by him) such sum shall not exceed threepence.
(2) An order of the Minister under this Section—

(a) may be revoked or varied by a subsequent order of the Minister made thereunder;
(b) shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after it is made;

and if either House within the next subsequent twenty-eight days on which that House has sat after the order has been laid before it resolves that the order be annulled the order shall thenceforth be void but without prejudice to the making of a new order.

This Clause enables the Development Board to collect from either pig producers or bacon producers such sums as the board may think right and proper as and when they want these sums to cover their expenses. We think that no outside taxing authority should have carte blanche to collect from pig or bacon producers or from anyone else just as much money as they think fit. I therefore suggest in this Amendment that 3d. per pig might be collected by the Development Board without appealing to the Minister, but that when the expenses of the board exceed that limit they should be called upon to apply to the Minister. I notice that the right hon. Gentleman in Clause 36 has an identical Amendment on the Paper for an identical purpose. Why he should have an Amendment down to Clause 36 and not to Clause 35 perhaps he will tell us. In any case this external taxation does not appeal to Members in all parts of the House, and although we appreciate that the Development Board's expenses must be found by the industry, we think that at least there should be a limit to their taxing ability.

11.28 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The hon. Member has drawn attention to the fact that in Clause 36 I have an Amendment making it necessary for the Minister to consent if a larger sum is imposed by the Bacon Marketing Board, and he very naturally prayed in aid this Amendment as a reason why I should accept a similar provision in regard to the Development Board. I confess that I agreed to put the Minister in the position of having this indirect control in the case of the Bacon Board with some reluctance, but there was justification for it which I do not think exists in this case—namely that the Bacon Board is a marketing board set up under the Agricultural Marketing Act, and its powers are detailed by a scheme and any amendment of the scheme enabling it to make greater charges would in the ordinary course of events have to go before its members for approval, with all the long-drawn-out discussion which is inserted in the scheme to safeguard members from alterations affecting their own interests.
In this particular case that procedure has not been adopted, and I thought there was some reason for giving the Minister power to give consent to any excess


charge made by the Bacon Board. In the case of the Development Board I do not think that limitation should be made. I had a feeling that as far as possible it is desirable to divorce the finance of these boards from Ministerial control. They have their own work to do and their own funds, and, as far as possible, the Minister should not interfere with them. In any case, I would point out that the limit which the hon. Minister has in mind would really make it necessary that in all cases the Minister would have control. As far as I can tell, it would work out as follows: The sum of 3d. per pig, say on 2,000,000 long-contract pigs, would provide £25,000 in a year. That is only half the sum which would be expended annually upon research alone under Clause 38 (2). With this 3d. limit it is clear that the board would always have to be running to the Minister for power to impose a levy.

11.32 p.m.

Mr. Alexander: It may be that the proposal that the limit should be 3d. is not satisfactory, but the Minister has not met the point of my hon. Friend that whereas in the case of the levies of the Bacon and Pigs Marketing Boards there is a limit, and that any increase must not only be put to the Minister but laid before Parliament, you are leaving unlimited powers to the Development Board to do what they like. They can increase the levy as much as they like. It is left to them to increase the tax upon the whole of the units in the pig and bacon industries. That isunreasonable, for we have always maintained that this House is the sole taxing authority. When that side of the question was raised in Committee, the Minister kindly met our point on Clause 36 by tabling the Amendment that if the Minister's approval is sought there must be an opportunity for Parliamentary comment to be made. But in the case of the Development Board, the right hon. Gentleman leaves it to the board to settle what the charge shall be at any time. The Minister could meet the point now by altering the limit in our Amendment. We were unaware when we drafted it what was likely to be the total charge normally required for the Development Board's funds, and we put down 3d. as a try-on. If 6d. is a more suitable limit, let the figure be 6d., and

then let Parliament ultimately make any alteration that may be necessary.

11.35 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: In view of what the hon. Member has said I should like to consider the matter to see whether I cannot meet the point raised. It is not a thing on which I should like to express an opinion straight away, because the limit is so small in this case that it would mean a continual responsibility on the part of the Minister.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 36.—(Contributions to expenses of marketing boards.)

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 48, line 4, after "Minister "to insert:
(to be embodied in an order made by him).
We had a discussion upon this point in Committee, and it was agreed then that where there is a levy of more than 6d. an order shall be laid before Parliament.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 48, line 8, at the end, insert:
(3) An order of the Minister under this Section—

(a) may be revoked or varied by a subsequent order of the Minister made thereunder,
(b) shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after it is made;

and if either House within the next subsequent twenty-eight days on which that House has sat after the order has been laid before it resolves that the order be annulled the order shall thenceforth be void but without prejudice to the making of a new order."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

CLAUSE 41.—(Miscellaneous powers of Pigs Marketing Board.)

11.37 p.m.

Mr. Alexander: I beg to move, in page 51, line 13, to leave out "transported or".
I have put down two Amendments to the same line of the Bill, one dealing with transport and the other with insurance. I do not wish to detain the House on the point, because it was discussed in another form on a new Clause moved by the hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens). While we are to negotiate—at least I hope we are to negotiate—as to how this is to be read in the future, I must, because of my own views and my instructions in the matter, divide the


House upon one or other of these Amendments as a matter of principle. I am moving the first one, dealing with transport, but let it be understood that if we divide only once it is in order to save the time of the House.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 188; Noes, 95.

Division No. 262.]
AYES.
11.37 p.m.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Nall, Sir J.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Everard, W. L.
Naven-Spence, Major B. H. H.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Fildes, Sir H.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.


Albery, Sir Irving
Furness, S. N.
Peat, C. U


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Patherick, M.


Aske, Sir R. W.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Pilkington, R.


Assheton, R.
Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Gledhill, G.
Porritt, R. W.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Grant-Ferris, R.
Procter, Major H. A.


Beechman, N. A.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Radford. E. A.


Beit, Sir A. L.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Bernays, R. H.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Grimston, R. V.
Ramsbotham, H.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Hombro, A. V.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Harbord, A.
Remer, J. R.


Bull, B. B.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Burghley, Lord
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Butcher, H. W.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan
Rowlands, G.


Cary, R. A.
Hepworth, J.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Herbert, Capt. Sir S. (Abbey)
Russell, Sir Alexander


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Higgs, W. F.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Channon, H.
Holmes, J. S.
Scott, Lord William


Chapman, A. (Rotherglen)
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Selley, H. R.


Christie, J. A.
Hopkinson, A.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Hunter, T.
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Hutchinson, G. C.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st)


Cellos, Major W. P.
Joel, D. J. B.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Colman, N. C. D.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Somerset, T.


Colville, Rt. Hon. John
Keeling, E. H.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Spans, W. P.


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Latham, Sir P.
Tate, Mavis C.


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Crooke, Sir J. Smedley
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Thomas, J. P. L.


Cross, R. H
Levy, T.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Liddall, W. S.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.


Cruddas, Col. B.
Lindsay, K. M.
Turton, R. H.


Culverwell, C. T.
Lipson, D. L.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Donner, P. W.
Mebane, W. (Huddersfield)
Warrender, Sir V.


Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Dower, Major A. V. G.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Drewe, C.
McKie, J. H.
Wells, Sir Sydney


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Macnamara, Major J. R. L.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Dunglass, Lord
Markham, S. F.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Eastwood, J. F.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Eckersley, P. T.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Wise, A. R.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Moreing, A. C.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Ellis, Sir G.
Morgan, R. H.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Elmley, Viscount
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry



Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Mulrhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Captain Dugdale and Lieut.-


Errington, E.
Munro, P.
Colonel Kerr.




NOES.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Bromfield, W.
Cocks, F. S.


Bonfield, J. W.
Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Collindridge, F.


Barnes, A. J.
Buchanan, G.
Daggar, G.


Batey, J.
Burke, W. A.
Dalton, H.


Benn Rt. Hon. W. W.
Cassells, T.
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)


Benson, G.
Chater, D.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)


Broad, F. A.
Cluse, W. S.
Day, H.




Debbie, W.
Leach, W.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Leonard, W.
Sexton, T. M.


Ede, J. C.
Logan, D. G.
Silkin, L.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Lunn, W.
Simpson, F. B.


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
McEntee, V. La T.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Grenfell, D. R.
McGhee, H. G.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
McGovern, J.
Sorensen, R. W.


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Marshall, F.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Groves, T. E.
Mathers, G.
Stokes, R. R.


Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Maxton, J.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Messer, F.
Thurtle, E.


Hayday, A.
Milner, Major J.
Tinker, J. J.


Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Tomlinson, G.


Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Muff, G.
Walkden, A. G.


Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Oliver, G. H.
Watkins, F. C.


Holdsworth, H.
Paling, W.
Watson, W. McL.


Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Parker, J.
Westwood, J.


Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Parkinson, J. A.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


John, W.
Pearson, A.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Pritt, D. N.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)



Kelly, W. T.
Ritson, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


Kirby, B. V.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Mr. Adamson and Mr. Anderson.


Lawson, J. J.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)



Question put, and agreed to.

11.46 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 51, line 14, at the end, to insert:
and if any registered producer causes any pig to be transported or insured in contravention of any determination in force under this Section, the Pigs Marketing Board shall impose upon and shall recover from him a monetary penalty not exceeding one pound for each pig so transported or insured.
At present no penalty is laid down in the Bill against any registered producer who contravenes the determination of the Pigs Marketing Board with regard to the terms on which pigs are transported or insured. The Amendment rectifies that omission.

Mr. Alexander: I am very much against this Amendment. I do not propose to divide the House again, but I protest against such a high penalty as is here laid down.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 43.—(Miscellaneous powers of Bacon Marketing Board.)

11.47 p.m.

Mr. Spans: I beg to move, in page 53, line 19, to leave out Sub-section (2).
This is consequential on the new Clause (Provisions as to transport of pigs on behalf of curers) which was accepted earlier.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 44.—(Wages and conditions of employment of persons employed in producing bacon.)

11.48 p.m.

Mr. Liddall: I beg to move, in page 55, line 13, at the end, to insert:

(4) Where the remuneration paid by an employer to a worker includes remuneration in respect of other work as well as in respect of bacon production work, the amount of the remuneration which is attributable to the bacon production work shall, if not apparent from the terms of the contract between the employer and the worker, be deemed to be an amount bearing the same proportion to the total remuneration as the time spent on bacon production work during the period in respect of which the total remuneration is payable bears to the whole of the time in respect of which that remuneration is payable.
The object of this proposed new Subsection is to provide that an employer shall not be required to pay wages which are considered fair in relation to work in connection with the production of bacon except for that portion of the time during which the employe is engaged in that particular class of work. Although in large bacon factories employes may be regarded as being engaged for the whole of their time on processes incidental to the production of bacon, that is not the position in the case of the smaller curers. Anyone producing more than 5 cwt. of bacon in a week is going to be required to take out a producer's licence, and must register under the Bacon Marketing Scheme, coming, therefore, within the provisions of this Clause; but a trader who only produces between 5 cwt. and 15 cwt. of bacon in a week does not employ one man solely for the purpose of producing that bacon. It should be noted that the term "production of bacon" covers the slaughtering of pigs where the bacon is made from a pig slaughtered by or on behalf of the person to whom the producer's licence is issued. A trader producing seven cwt. of bacon in a week


would not utilise the services of the man for the whole week in doing nothing but slaughtering the seven pigs and in connection with the various processes incidental to the manufacture of bacon. Such a man would be employed in other work; he might be driving a motor van or be engaged in making sausages or pork pies, processes which by no stretch of imagination can be described as in connection with the production of bacon.
I submit that there is precedent for this Amendment in the Road Haulage Wages Bill, where a similar difficulty had arisen, namely, that a number of persons are employed in driving commercial goods vehicles for part of the day but are engaged in other work for the remainder of the day. I submit that this is a reasonable Amendment, in view of what was accepted on the Road Haulage Wages Bill. I have moved two previous Amendments this evening, and if this one is accepted it will pay for the effort I have made.

11.52 p.m.

Mr. Haslam: I beg to second the Amendment.
The purpose of it is not that these people shall reduce wages. It seems to be an equitable Amendment which will be particularly appreciated by the small men.

11.53 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: Apparently the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Liddall) represents the small employer here and is asking this House at this moment and at this late hour to pass an Amendment in order to get round the Fair Wages Clause. From the observations which he made that he wants to prevent employers from paying wages—[Interruption.]

Mr. Liddall: On a point of Order. The hon. Member has referred to my presence in this House as typifying the man who does not want to see fair wages paid; I submit that that is a gross libel and should be withdrawn.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of Order.

Mr. T. Williams: A Fair Wages Clause is embodied in the Bill for all those engaged in the production of pigs, but the hon. Member wants to divide the time that is supposed to be occupied by the bacon producer in any other subsidiary occupation so that some part of his wage

shall be paid on the basis of the Fair Wages Clause and the other part, apparently, at a lower rate. Clearly that is the purpose of the Amendment. The hon. Member asks the House to circumscribe the Fair Wages Clause, so that then employès should have less in wages than the Fair Wages Clause would give them. Whatever excuses the hon. Member may make he cannot get away from the terms of his Amendment; and if the Amendment is not intended to reduce the wages that might be received by the employès in a bacon factory, what is the object of the Amendment? It may be that a very bad precedent has been adopted in this House in some transport Measure, but there can be no justification for the hon. Member to suggest, when a Measure is introduced to develop one of our major industries, when a financial guarantee is proposed for producers of pigs and bacon and we are to provide opportunities for restricting imports so that the prices may be maintained, that employès in the industries may have something less than the wages which would be paid under the Fair Wages Clause. The Lincoln workers, at all events, will know exactly what the hon. Member stands for now. I hope the Minister will not accept the Amendment.

11.56 p.m.

Mr. Ramsbotham: As my hon Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Liddall) has pointed out, this Amendment is lifted bodily from the Road Haulage Wages Bill, except for certain verbal alterations. But the Road Haulage Wages Bill set up trade hoards and made other necessary arrangements. In my judgment, and, I think, in the judgment of the House, it would be futile to transfer a Sub-section from the Road Haulage Wages Bill to this Bill and expect it to work, without providing all the machinery of the Road Haulage Wages Bill. I have no doubt that if the Amendment were accepted it would result in confusion. There is no provision in the Bill to secure accurate records of the time worked. I feel that my hon. Friend, when he considers it, will have no doubt at all that this Amendment would go a long way towards destroying the operation of the Fair Wages Clause so far as this Bill is concerned.

11.58 p.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams: I am afraid the Minister and the hon. Member opposite


have not understood the principle of this Amendment. The hon. Member opposite, in rather an ungenerous speech, merely went on the assumption that the sole object was to cut wages. But let us take the case of a man employed by a butcher who makes a quantity of bacon. The man serves behind the counter part of the day, cuts up part of the day, and it may be drives a vehicle part of the day. When engaged as a salesman he may be on a basis of wages plus commission. That form of remuneration may, in fact, give him a higher rate of pay than he would get under this Bill, but nevertheless, tested by this principle, his wages may not comply with the Fair Wages Clause.

Mr. T. Williams: Does the hon. Member maintain that if any employed person who spends part of his time in the production of bacon and another part of his time in a butcher's shop or a butcher's van is paid more than the Fair Wages Clause would give him, that would not continue without the inclusion of this Amendment?

Mr. H. G. Williams: Let us take the case of a man paid a moderate standing wage and commission. The commission would vary from week to week and according to seasonal demands. Surely, you have to consider the whole terms of his employment; and to apply to him, in respect of what may be only one quarter of his hours of employment, regulations which are intended to apply to people working continuously in a factory on the same process, is manifestly absurd. The fact that the Minister of Pensions says that he wants many more words does not indicate that his Department have given proper consideration to the matter, and the fact that the Amendment is incomplete is not a reflection upon the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Liddall), but rather a reflection upon the Department in that they have not taken much trouble to put the Bill in a satisfactory form. If it had not been that the Road Haulage Rates Bill had been amended to some extent as a result of my suggestions, there would have been the anomaly that one of the people talked about would have had his contract rate of pay for some of his work, the board rate for another job, and wages fixed by the Bill for another part of his time. He would be working

under three conditions of wage rates, which would be a manifest absurdity and would irritate everybody. It would be better to attempt to arrive at a fair solution in the interests of these people. This Bill contemplates the position of the regular full-time factory worker, and I beg of the Minister to give rather more careful consideration to this sensible Amendment.

12.2 a.m.

Mr. Kelly: After listening to the amazing speech of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams), I am still of the opinion that, despite his association with employers' associations, during all the years that I have known him, he has never had to deal with wages.

Mr. H. G. Williams: I have never been associated with any employers' association in my life.

Mr. Kelly: I have not the time to deal with that matter to-night, but I will tell the hon. Member afterwards the places where he has worked. It is a good job that he has never had to deal with wages. That is a subject about which, in addressing this House, he has shown that he knows so little. I am sorry to have to say that to him, but it is clear from his speech. He has asked the House to think of the Fair Wages Clause and of the people, who, employed doing something else during part of their time, would be receiving a higher rate of pay, commission and all the rest of it, and has tried to make the House believe that under the Fair Wages Clause you are compelled to bring wages down. There is no Fair Wages Clause operated by the Government, a local authority or by any association which compels an employer to bring down wages to any level. The employer complies with the Fair Wages Clause provided he does not pay lower wages than the particular figure mentioned. If the employers—butchers and others—to whom the hon. Member refers desire to continue paying wages at a higher level, they will be complying with the Fair Wages Clause. If these people are paying the higher rate, there is no need for the Amendment, and I hope that the House will reject it.

12.4 a.m.

Mr. Alexander: I do not want this Amendment to be disposed of without


saying a word or two on the matter. I am very glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) has spoken in the way he has done. He has had very great trade union experience in this matter and knows what he is talking about. I also have had some experience of this kind of distributive trades where men are at times employed upon actual productive operations. These things arise from day to day not only in connection with trade unions, but also in the services administered in connection with trade board negotiations. There is not the slightest ground for an Amendment of this nature for the purpose of getting round the Fair Wages Clause.
If the traders for whom the hon. Member for Lincoln speaks and who have interests to be served—and rightly to be considered, I do not deny—would bend their efforts to seeing that the workers in the trade were members of the trade union and had a free and open platform for negotiation, and that a definition were arranged with the trade union as to the percentage of the particular occupations that qualified for the higher wages, they would not only he all right for the Fair Wages Clause but would be quite immune from danger from any trade union. That is the line that ought to be taken by the people for whom the hon. Member speaks; it is already taken by the great body of employers in this industry—a fact which has obviously been brought to the notice of the Minister, making it imperative to include a Fair Wages Clause in the Bill.
It is only playing with words for the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) to say that this Amendment might secure higher wages for some of the people in the industry; I beg to assure him that that is not so in this industry. Those who are acquainted with the bacon and butchering trades know the qualifications of the man who is both an experienced slaughterman and bacon curer and at the same time has to be a sufficiently competent assistant to serve and to take cash, and also at times to deliver. There is no doubt what ought to be the rate of wages paid; it is the highest rate. I compliment the Minister upon standing firm, while the hon. Member for Lincoln is supporting a very unworthy object.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 47.—(Miscellaneous provisions as to contracts.)

Further Amendments made:

In page 58, line 9, leave out:
or as between persons who enter into those contracts as purchasers."—[Sir A. Gridley.]

In page 58, line 35, leave out "formed," and insert "framed."

In line 36, leave out "determine a," and insert:
specify, whether by determining a form of contract or otherwise, the terms on which pigs, carcases, or parts of carcases may he sold or purchased shall in relation to any.

In line 40, leave out "shall," and insert "be deemed."

In page 59, line 1, after "terms," insert "to."

In line 12, leave out "sum," and insert "sums."

In line 16, after "and," insert "to."

In line 20, leave out Sub-section (3).—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

CLAUSE 51.—(Interpretation.)

Amendment made: In page 6i, line 42, at the end insert "and 'registration' shall be construed accordingly."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — CHURCH OF ENGLAND ASSEMBLY (POWERS) ACT, 1919.

12.12 a.m.

Lieut.-Commander Agnew: I beg to move,
That, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Faculty Jurisdiction Measure, 1938, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent.

Sir John Birchall: I beg to second the Motion.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: Are we not to have any explanation of this Motion?

Lieut.-Commander Agnew: The hour is late, and I will say only a few words in explanation. This Measure does not alter the present law with regard to what is lawful or what is not lawful in the way of ornament or decoration inside a church, but it makes one important change in that it brings in for the first time a new officer as a legal person who may appear


in faculty cases, namely, the archdeacon of the archdeaconry in which the parish is situated. The Measure also gives legal recognition for the first time to diocesan advisory committees, which have existed for a number of years but are now given the force of law although it is not made obligatory for the chancellor of the diocese to consult them before giving his decision. There are some minor points, among them the power upon a faculty to sell or dispose of books out of the parochial library. Up till now this power has been granted only by the ordinary, and then only if a duplicate copy of the book existed in the parochial library. Under this Measure it will be possible for the faculty to dispose of the book, even when it is the only copy in existence, provided that the proceeds are devoted to ecclesiastical purposes. I trust that these few words will be a sufficient explanation.

Resolved,
That, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Faculty Jurisdiction Measure, 1938, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent.

12.15 a.m.

Mr. Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to move,
That, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Liverpool City Churches Act, 1897 (Amendment), Measure, 1938, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent.

This Measure deals only with a very small point. The present position of the law is that a building and endowment fund in Liverpool can be used for the acquisition of sites or the building of churches inside the city boundary. As hon. Members are aware, there are numerous housing schemes on the edge of the city and just outside its boundaries, and the object of this Motion is to enable the fund to be used for providing churches for parishes which are just outside the boundaries, in these new housing schemes.

Sir J. Birchall: I beg to second the Motion.

Resolved,
That, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Liverpool City Churches Act, 1897 (Amendment), Measure, 1938, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the clock upon Wednesday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Sixteen Minutes after Twelve o'Clock.